Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Minds: Synthetic Market Research

by ai.getminds
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Show Study Plan

render_study_plan
Read-onlyIdempotent

Shows a saved Study draft at its current revision for interactive review and confirmation. Research has not started.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
studyIdYes
revisionYes
draftPlanIdYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
studyIdNoStudy the plan belongs to.
revisionNoDraft revision to confirm.
nextActionNoWhat to do next: show the draft and wait for explicit confirmation.
draftPlanIdNoDraft plan to confirm with start_study_run.
draftReviewNoThe saved draft as reviewed: questions, methods, outputs and confirmation choices.
workspaceUrlNoAuthenticated Minds workspace link for the Study.
audienceAttachmentNoWith study.audienceIds: attached (added now) and alreadyAttached Audience IDs.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / workspaceUrl
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Authenticated Minds workspace link for the Study.",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / draftPlanId / description
      Previous value: -"Draft plan to confirm with run_study_questions."New value: +"Draft plan to confirm with start_study_run."
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / audienceAttachment
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "With study.audienceIds: attached (added now) and alreadyAttached Audience IDs."
+}
  4. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds meaningful state context beyond that: the draft is saved, shown at its current revision, intended for interactive review, and research has not started.

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?

Two short sentences are front-loaded with the main action and state. There is no filler, and the key constraint that research has not started is placed clearly at the end.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The annotations and output schema reduce the need to explain safety and return values, and the description covers the review-state context well. However, for a tool with three opaque required identifiers, it is incomplete because it does not explain the parameters or how they relate to the draft revision.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and there are three required parameters, so the description needs to compensate but mostly does not. It alludes to a revision, but gives no meaning for studyId or draftPlanId and does not explain how the revision relates to the saved draft.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific action and resource: showing a saved Study draft at its current revision for interactive review and confirmation. It is clearer than a generic 'render' description, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_study_plan or revise_study_plan.

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 gives a clear usage context: interactive review and confirmation of a saved draft while research has not started. It does not explicitly say when to use this instead of get_study_plan or revise_study_plan, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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

All Minds: Synthetic Market Research toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources