link_goal_plan Link (or unlink) a zoninga goal to a Visions & Goals plan.
Args:
goal_id: The zoninga goal id (owned by the user).
vng_goal_id: The V&G plan id to link — verified against the
user's linked V&G account. Pass null/omit to UNLINK.
Returns:
{"success": True, "goal_id": ..., "vng_goal_id": ...} or an
error dict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal_id | Yes | ||
| vng_goal_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description discloses behavior annotations miss: the same call doubles as an UNLINK operation, and the target is verified against the user's linked V&G account. That unlink capability is meaningful context beyond the structured hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with the action, then structured Args/Returns blocks. Efficient, though the Args/Returns docstring formatting is slightly verbose for a two-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers both parameters, the unlink path, the account-verification requirement, and the return shape. Annotations cover the safety profile, so little is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: goal_id is described as the user-owned goal id, and vng_goal_id as the verified plan id where null/omit triggers unlinking. This adds real meaning the schema lacks.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource: linking/unlinking a 'zoninga goal' to a 'Visions & Goals plan'. This is clearly distinct from siblings like create_goal_plan, get_goal_plan, and list_goal_plans, which an agent can tell apart without opening a schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives one concrete usage rule (pass null/omit to UNLINK), which is helpful, but offers no when-to-use guidance against alternatives or prerequisites for when linking is appropriate. Usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.