Skip to main content
Glama

Conducted MCP

by io.github.Mostov82

Assemble the kickoff file plan

kickoff_plan

Assemble, from the bundled templates, the four _template.md copies (front-matter tokens replaced), decision-log.md, and a filled AGENT_CONVENTIONS.md (kickoff guide Steps 2–5). Supply project_type, the interview answers, optional detected (brownfield pre-fill fallback), and optional existing (the agent's inventory of files already present). Returns { files: [{ path, content, action }], missing, open_questions, warnings }. The plan is ready iff missing is empty (D5 strict); a file with any unresolved {{…}} token is reported in missing. Idempotent: already-present files are 'review'/'skip', never overwritten. The server returns content + paths only — it writes nothing (Model C, D2/D6).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersYesConfirmed interview answers keyed by token id (e.g. PROJECT_NAME, LOCKED_DOCS).
detectedNoFacts the agent detected by inspecting the repo (brownfield only).
existingNoAgent inventory of files already present in the target (for idempotent re-runs).
project_typeYes'greenfield' or 'brownfield'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it assembles files from templates, replaces tokens, reports missing tokens, never overwrites (idempotent), and returns files with actions without writing to disk. This is comprehensive and addresses safety (no writes) and constraints (D5 strict).

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?

The description is a single paragraph with every sentence providing essential information—purpose, inputs, output structure, idempotency, and conditions. It is efficient and front-loads the main action.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the return value structure (files, missing, open_questions, warnings) and the success condition. All input parameters are contextualized, and behavioral nuances (idempotency, token resolution) are covered, making it complete for an agent.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining that answers are keyed by token id, detected holds brownfield facts, and existing is the agent's file inventory, providing context beyond the schema field names.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Assemble' and lists exactly which files are produced (four _template.md copies, decision-log.md, AGENT_CONVENTIONS.md), clearly distinguishing from siblings like kickoff_questions (for gathering answers) or decision_log_guidance (for format guidance).

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 indicates required inputs (project_type, answers) and optional ones (detected, existing), implying use after interview answers are collected. It also states the ready condition (missing empty) and idempotency, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use this tool versus siblings.

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

All Conducted MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool addresses a distinct aspect of the methodology: decision logging, gate evaluation, kickoff planning and questions, procedure retrieval, standup scheduling, and artifact validation. No two tools have overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case but mix verb_noun (evaluate_gate, validate_artifact) with noun_phrase patterns (kickoff_plan, next_procedure, standup_due). The pattern is not fully consistent, though each name is still readable.

Tool Count5/5

With 7 tools, the server covers the key lifecycle points of the Conducted Development methodology without being too sparse or bloated. Each tool serves a clear purpose within this scope.

Completeness4/5

The tools cover decision logging, gate checks, kickoff, procedure guidance, standup triggers, and validation. Missing an explicit tool for session execution, but next_procedure provides steps, mitigating the gap.

Resources