Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

TextKit

by com.jointextkit
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Plan task

plan_task
Read-onlyIdempotent

The questions behind anything a person does here, with this account's options for each: send a text, buy or release a number, register for 10DLC, verify a toll-free number, request a short code, verification codes, a recurring text, a segment, template, list, topic, connecting a tool, a webhook, an API key, a link domain, a spend limit, a number pool, importing opt-outs, automations, broadcasts. task: a key or the person's words ("buy a number"); omit it for the list. Each question names the fields it fills; inputs lists every field the API takes; rules, gaps, and person_submits when the person files it in the console. Changes nothing.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "plan_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskNoA task key (buy_number, register_10dlc, ...) or the person's own words ("buy a number"). Omit to list the tasks.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the output structure—each question names fields, inputs lists API fields, and rules/gaps/person_submits are provided—which is essential context beyond the annotations. The phrase 'Changes nothing' aligns with readOnlyHint rather than contradicting it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one long sentence with an extensive list of covered actions, followed by fragmented clauses. It is dense and not front-loaded—the most important information (what the tool returns) is buried after a confusing opening. The list of actions may be necessary for scope, but the overall structure could be clearer.

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?

For a planning tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure (questions, inputs, rules, gaps, person_submits). Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to understand what the tool produces and that it is non-destructive. The main gap is lack of explicit usage guidance, but that is scored separately.

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 the parameter is fully documented in the input schema. The description largely repeats the schema ('task: a key or the person's words... omit it for the list') without adding new syntax or edge-case details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description hints at a planning/introspection tool that returns questions and options for many action types, but the opening clause 'The questions behind anything a person does here' is vague and does not state a clear verb+resource. It becomes clearer with the list of covered actions and the parameter description, but the core purpose is not crisply front-loaded.

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?

The only usage guidance is embedded in the parameter: 'omit it for the list.' There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus directly invoking the many create/update siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer that this is a pre-action planning tool.

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

All TextKit 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