MangoMe

enter_work

Admit user intent into governed work by creating a deterministic operational Project/Family, WorkIdentity, and intent baseline without MangoMe identifiers.

Instructions

Enter governed work from ordinary user intent with no MangoMe identifiers required.

The managed workspace becomes a deterministic operational Project/Family + WorkIdentity. The current user request is admitted as an operational-intent baseline, not automatically as a Specification or Contract. Discovery candidates are never promoted automatically.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`intent`	No
`actor_id`	Yes
`estimate`	No
`slice_title`	No
`request_text`	Yes
`expected_scope`	No
`slice_objective`	No
`controller_token`	No
`required_evidence`	No
`expected_artifacts`	No
`acceptance_criteria`	No
`controller_actor_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.4Sep 27, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / controller_actor_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Controller Actor Id"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / controller_token

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Controller Token"
+}

Addedv0.1.2Sep 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavioral traits – the workspace becomes a deterministic Project/Family + WorkIdentity, the request is admitted as an operational-intent baseline only, and discovery candidates are never auto-promoted. However, it omits idempotency, permissions, reversibility, and escalation semantics for a mutation-style tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The three short paragraphs are reasonably front-loaded, but the middle and final sentences are dense internal jargon that restates governance philosophy rather than adding callable information. Size is acceptable; the wording is opaque rather than wasteful.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 12-parameter governance tool with no annotations, the description is far too abstract to guide correct invocation. The presence of an output schema relieves it of explaining return values, but it still fails to cover parameter intent, prerequisites, or how to choose it over near-identical siblings.

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

Parameters1/5

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

There are 12 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description addresses none of them. Terms like 'actor_id', 'controller_token', 'required_evidence', 'expected_scope', and 'slice_objective' are entirely undocumented, so the agent has no basis for supplying anything beyond the two required fields.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description uses an abstract verb+resource ('Enter governed work') but never states concretely what the tool creates or returns. It is heavily laden with internal jargon (MangoMe identifiers, WorkIdentity, operational-intent baseline) and gives no way to tell it apart from close siblings like begin_work, start_slice, or intake_request.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is a faint usage hint ('from ordinary user intent with no MangoMe identifiers required') implying use when IDs are absent, but no explicit when/when-not and no alternatives are named. With dozens of similarly named sibling tools, this leaves the agent guessing.

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

Deploy Server