Skip to main content
Glama
sledmonkey

FlightPlan

by sledmonkey
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

complete_intent

Close out an intent by recording its status, required outcome summary, changed files, commits, and uncommitted state so other agents can detect collisions.

Instructions

Close out an intent when work finishes or is abandoned. The outcome summary is required for done and is the most valuable artifact this system produces: write one paragraph covering what actually changed, anything surprising, approaches tried and rejected, and anything deliberately left in place. Gather git facts as exhaust — you already have them at completion time: files = repo-relative paths actually changed (git diff --name-only over the work, committed or not); commits = SHAs created for this work; uncommitted = true if ANY of the work is not yet committed (untracked/unstaged/staged-only) — this flag is what lets other agents' collision checks warn loudly instead of quietly. Omit anything unknown. Any overlaps that come back carry excerpts, and overlaps_omitted counts the ones the server cut per level — use get_intent(id) for a full record.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe intent id returned by post_intent.
filesNoRepo-relative paths actually changed (from `git diff --name-only` over the work). Omit if unknown.
statusYesdone = landed; abandoned = stopped without landing.
commitsNoCommit SHAs produced for this work. Omit if unknown.
outcomeYesOne paragraph: what actually changed, surprises, dead ends, things deliberately left alone.
uncommittedNoTrue if ANY of the work is not yet committed (untracked/unstaged/staged-only). This flag escalates collision warnings for other agents. False = all committed. Omit if unknown.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral context: the outcome is required for `done`, the `uncommitted` flag escalates collision warnings for other agents, and overlaps_omitted counts server-side cuts per level. It stops short of describing idempotency or what happens if the intent is already closed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose and the required-outcome instruction are front-loaded, and most sentences (collision warning escalation, overlaps_omitted) earn their place. The git-fact paragraph is somewhat verbose and duplicates schema text.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the meaningful return signals (overlap excerpts and overlaps_omitted) and the required outcome artifact. It omits error/edge behavior for an already-completed intent, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, and the description's git-fact explanations largely restate them. Baseline 3 applies because the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the structured fields provide.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Close out an intent') plus the triggering condition ('when work finishes or is abandoned'). It also names get_intent as the route to a full record, so an agent can place it among its siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear timing context (completion or abandonment) and points to get_intent for full records. It does not differentiate from close siblings like update_intent or mark_intent_landed, leaving a possible ambiguity about which tool ends the lifecycle.

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