Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIWorkhub

AIWorkhub

by shrec
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

roadmap_transition

Change a roadmap outcome's status with a manager-only guarded transition; supply a target status and audit reason, and invalid moves are refused.

Instructions

Manager-only guarded Roadmap lifecycle transition.

Use this to change an outcome's status; use roadmap_link_task to attach a task without changing status.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "roadmap_id": "<roadmap_id>",
      "target_status": "<target_status>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "roadmap_transition"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonYesRequired non-blank explanation, at most 4000 bytes, recorded in the audit event.
roadmap_idYesRoadmap outcome id in the form RM-YYYY-NNNNN, e.g. RM-2026-00001.
target_statusYesStatus to move to: approved, in_progress, blocked, deferred, completed or archived; a move the current status does not allow is refused.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.12.67
    • addedInput schema / properties / reason / description
      Added value: +"Required non-blank explanation, at most 4000 bytes, recorded in the audit event."
    • addedInput schema / properties / roadmap_id / description
      Added value: +"Roadmap outcome id in the form RM-YYYY-NNNNN, e.g. RM-2026-00001."
    • addedInput schema / properties / target_status / description
      Added value: +"Status to move to: approved, in_progress, blocked, deferred, completed or archived; a move the current status does not allow is refused."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description adds two real behavioral facts: the operation is manager-only (an authorization constraint) and it is 'guarded' (validated, not free-form). The word 'guarded' is left undefined in the description, with the actual refusal rule and audit recording living in the schema, so it is not fully self-contained.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose stated first and the disambiguation second. Every clause carries information the agent needs to select the tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a guarded mutation with a fully documented three-parameter schema and no output schema, the definition covers who may call it, what it mutates, and how it differs from the sibling. The remaining gap is the result of a transition (new status, audit event reference) and failure behavior, which the description never touches.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each of the three parameters is already documented with format (RM-YYYY-NNNNN), allowed statuses, and the reason/audit requirement. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 for a fully documented schema applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Roadmap lifecycle transition') and immediately narrows it to 'change an outcome's status', so the agent knows exactly which object is mutated. It also explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling roadmap_link_task, removing ambiguity within the roadmap_* family.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit routing rule: use this to change status, use roadmap_link_task to attach a task without changing status. That is clear when-to-use guidance with a named alternative. It stops short of a 5 because the closest confusable siblings (roadmap_add, roadmap_show, roadmap_list) are not addressed and no preconditions for a valid transition are stated in the description itself.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools