Roundtable

Plan Implementation

plan-implementation

Implementation planning council. Tech Lead, Senior Engineer, and QA Strategist break down a feature into actionable steps, identify risks, and define acceptance criteria. Output as ADR.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`feature`	Yes	The feature or change to plan
`knowledge`	No	Reference knowledge to inject as context
`tech_stack`	No	Current tech stack
`constraints`	No	Constraints (e.g., ["no breaking changes", "must support offline"])
`webhook_url`	No	Webhook URL to POST results to after completion
`thinking_level`	No	Planning depth	medium
`session_context`	No	Session IDs to use as context (max 3). Prior moderator summaries will be prepended.
`codebase_context`	No	Relevant existing code, file structure, or architecture notes

Schema Changelog

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

First observedMar 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds that output is an ADR but does not disclose side effects such as webhook POSTing or other external actions, which would be useful context beyond annotations.

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 two sentences and about 30 words, with no unnecessary detail. It front-loads the council concept and clearly states the output format, earning its place.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and output, and parameter details are well-covered by the schema. It omits behavioral aspects like webhook usage, but those are present in the schema descriptions. Overall, it is adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: a council of roles breaks down a feature into actionable steps, identifies risks, and defines acceptance criteria, output as an ADR. This is a specific verb+resource statement that differentiates it from sibling tools like design-architecture or consult-council.

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?

The description provides clear context that this tool is for implementation planning, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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

All Roundtable tools Inspect

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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The tool set separates general consultation (consult-council) from specialized councils for tradeoffs, debugging, architecture, implementation planning, and code review. Session management and utility tools (logs, usage, models, sessions) are clearly distinct. Only minor potential overlap exists between consult-council and the specialized councils, but descriptions clarify the purpose of each.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., consult-council, get-session, list-models). Verbs are varied but predictable, and compound nouns are hyphenated consistently. No mixed conventions.

Tool Count5/5

13 tools is appropriate for a platform that offers multiple council workflows plus session, log, and usage management. Each tool addresses a distinct need without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness5/5

The server covers the full lifecycle of a council-based workflow: model discovery (list-models), execution (consult-council and specialized councils), session retrieval (list-sessions, get-session), sharing (get-thread-link, set-thread-visibility), and operational support (check-usage, get-logs). Missing delete/update session tools are minor and not essential for the core purpose.

Resources

Need Help?