Propose a NEW milestone (+ optional tasks) → Inbox.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | No | One-line goal (optional) | |
| name | Yes | Milestone name | |
| tasks | No | Task names (optional) | |
| project_id | No | ||
| acknowledge_rejection | No | Only after a DECLINED bounce AND asking the user |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / acknowledge_rejection / descriptionPrevious value: -"Only when a previous call bounced with 'the owner DECLINED this': pass true AFTER asking the user. Never pass it just to get past the gate."New value: +"Only after a DECLINED bounce AND asking the user"Input schema / properties / project_id / descriptionRemoved value: -"Project id (from list_projects) to act on; omit = the connector URL's project."Input schema / properties / acknowledge_rejectionAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Only when a previous call bounced with 'the owner DECLINED this': pass true AFTER asking the user. Never pass it just to get past the gate.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only include destructiveHint: false. The description adds the 'Inbox' destination, suggesting a proposal workflow rather than direct creation, which is useful. However, it doesn't detail side effects, the need for acknowledgment, or what happens after proposing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is perfectly front-loaded and contains no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action, purpose, and one key parameter behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description gives the core purpose but lacks context about the proposal workflow, when to set acknowledge_rejection, and how it fits with sibling tools. With 5 parameters and no output schema, more guidance would be helpful, though the schema fills some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds minimal parameter meaning beyond mentioning optional tasks, which is already in the schema. The project_id parameter is left undocumented in both the schema and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Propose'), resource ('milestone'), and destination ('Inbox'), clearly distinguishing it from update_milestone and other propose_* tools. The 'NEW' qualifier reinforces that this is for creating new milestones.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates when to use the tool (to propose a new milestone, optionally with tasks), and 'NEW' implies not for updating existing ones. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with explicit distinctions between direct actions and proposals via Inbox. The verbs and object types (system, milestone, screen, element, balance) are unique enough that no two tools appear to do the same thing.
Most tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_system, propose_screen, update_element). Minor deviations like 'dedupe', 'search', 'next_task', and 'reorder' are single words or non-verb but remain readable and stylistically compatible.
With 54 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical MCP scope, hitting the 'extreme mismatch' threshold. Even for a complex domain, the sheer number will overwhelm agents and degrade selection performance.
The tool surface is remarkably complete, covering full lifecycle operations for all major entities, plus import, design generation, drift detection, status reporting, inbox handling, and rejection workflows. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.