memory_strategic_plan_setPropose a new OKR cycle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Cycle name, e.g. 2026 Q2 | |
| agent | No | Override agent identity | |
| period_end | Yes | Inclusive end date | |
| period_start | Yes | Inclusive start date |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action—'Propose a new OKR cycle'—but does not disclose whether this persists data, overwrites existing plans, validates the date period, requires permissions, or has any side effects. This is too thin for a write-oriented tool.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, and the core resource and action are front-loaded. It earns its place, though it is terse to the point of omitting useful context.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still lacks essential usage context: what happens after proposing, whether an existing OKR cycle is replaced, how this relates to other strategic tools, and whether only one active cycle is allowed. The surrounding sibling list shows a rich strategic-planning domain, yet the description gives almost no orientation within it.
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?
The schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (name, period_start, period_end, agent), so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents.
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 and resource—'Propose a new OKR cycle'—which clearly distinguishes this from related tools like memory_strategic_plan_get, memory_strategic_plan_list, and the objective/key-result setters. However, the word 'propose' sits in slight tension with the tool name 'set', leaving ambiguity about whether it creates a formal plan or merely suggests one.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related strategic-planning tools such as memory_strategic_objective_set, memory_strategic_key_result_set, or memory_strategic_initiative_set. It also does not state whether this is for creating only or updating existing cycles, or whether the 'propose' action requires any follow-up approval or confirmation.
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.
With 104 tools across many domains (memory, work, projects, files, agents, context, strategic, ontology), the use of clear prefixes (memory_, work_, project_, file_, agent_run_, context_) makes most tools distinct. However, there are some potential confusions between memory_session_* vs memory_state_*, and memory_recall vs memory_think vs memory_assemble_context, though descriptions clarify their specific purposes. Aliases like memory_playbook_get for memory_procedure_get are explicit and reduce ambiguity.
Tool names follow a highly consistent pattern: prefix_domain_action (e.g., file_create, work_update, memory_recall, agent_run_start). All use snake_case, with verbs consistently placed after the domain prefix. Even less common tools like account_brief and attention_snapshot fit the overall naming scheme, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
At 104 tools, this is an exceptionally large surface area, far exceeding the 25+ threshold that feels heavy. However, the server covers an extensive domain (organizational memory, work management, project tracking, file sharing, agent orchestration, and strategic planning), which justifies a large count. Still, the sheer number may overwhelm agents, and some tools could be consolidated (e.g., many memory_session_* and memory_state_* variants).
The tool surface is remarkably complete for its stated purpose, covering CRUD operations for files, work items, projects, and memory, plus lifecycle management for agents, sessions, and strategic plans. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct memory_item_get by ID, no section removal in projects), but agents can work around these using existing tools like memory_recall or work_create with parent_id. Overall, the set minimizes dead ends.