Push Drop Stick: force-free dog training

Search training plans

search_plans

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find step-by-step, force-free training plans for a behavior, problem or command, e.g. "pulling on leash", "crate training", "come when called", "nail trims", "jumping on guests". BM25 ranked. Returns each plan's plan ref, summary, step count, author and canonical url to recommend. Next: get_plan for the full steps. For concepts or advice ("what is threshold", "are prong collars ok") use search_handbook instead.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_plans"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max results (1-25).
`query`	Yes	What to train, or the problem to solve, in plain words.
`species`	No	Optional filter: only plans written for this species, lowercase singular ("dog", "cat", ...). Most plans are "dog".
`language`	No	Optional filter: only plans written in this language (ISO 639-1 code, e.g. "en", "it"). Most plans are "en".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: BM25 ranking, the exact fields returned (plan ref, summary, step count, author, canonical url), and the recommended downstream tool. It doesn't discuss empty-result behavior or ranking ties, but that is a minor gap.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: purpose and examples first, then ranking/return shape, then the next step and the sibling hand-off. No sentence is filler, and the exclusion is placed last where it does the least harm to the primary instruction.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it closes the loop with a follow-up tool. For a four-parameter, read-only search tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it or act on results is missing.

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 limit, query, species, and language are all documented in structured fields. The description's query examples add modest color about phrasing but say nothing new about the species/language filters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (find) and a precisely scoped resource (step-by-step, force-free training plans for a behavior, problem or command), reinforced by five concrete query examples. It is clearly separable from get_plan (full steps) and search_handbook (concepts/advice), both of which are named.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives positive examples of what to search for ("pulling on leash", "nail trims"), an explicit exclusion with the alternative tool ("For concepts or advice ... use search_handbook instead"), and an explicit follow-up action ("Next: get_plan for the full steps"). When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the next step in the workflow are all covered.

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

All Push Drop Stick: force-free dog training tools Inspect

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

Need Help?