get_current_plan
The current weekly content plan and its items.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Cadencz
by com.cadencz
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only offers a noun phrase. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is required, or what happens if no current plan exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short phrase with no unnecessary words, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool. Adding an explicit verb could strengthen it, but the brevity is not a flaw.
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?
For a tool with no parameters, this description may be minimally sufficient, but it lacks detail about what the items contain, what the return format looks like, and whether a plan must already exist. With no output schema, the agent has to infer most response details.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. A baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 clearly identifies the resource as 'current weekly content plan and its items,' and the tool name 'get_current_plan' reinforces retrieval intent. It is distinct from siblings like get_plan_usage or plan_week, though the description itself does not explicitly differentiate them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_plan_usage or plan_week. There is no mention of prerequisites, context needed, or what 'current' means in relation to the planning workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action in the content workflow: planning, composing, approving, scheduling, canceling, publishing, querying, and analytics. Even similar actions like schedule_post and publish_now are clearly separated by timing and irreversibility.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names consistently use snake_case verbs followed by nouns (list_channels, compose_post, cancel_scheduled_post). The pattern is predictable and makes resource-action relationships easy to infer.
Tool Count5/5
14 tools is well-scoped for a content planning and social publishing server. Each tool covers a meaningful step in the workflow without redundant or excessive additions.
Completeness4/5
The set covers the core content lifecycle: plan, compose, approve, schedule, publish, cancel, and analyze. Minor gaps exist around editing existing drafts or directly modifying plan items, but these can be worked around with the provided tools.