Taseli

The work plan

get_plan

Read-onlyIdempotent

Taseli's work plan for the business, read only: the active plan (stage, goals, the owner's rules it follows, what Taseli does now and next and why, its if-then branches, when it is looked at again), or a plain note that none is built yet; plus the follow-up steps waiting (what, why, when it is checked next, whether it acts by itself or only tells) and steps done, blocked or expired in the last 30 days. Every line carries its id (item, a waiting step's step). Useful for 'what's the plan?', 'what's next?', 'what are you waiting for?', 'when do we add budget?', 'what did the plan do?'.

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": "get_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account`	No	An ad account's name, to look at one account; omit for all of them.
`language`	No	Answer language. The business's language by default.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	A plain note instead of data (nothing connected yet, not available here).
`error`	No	Why nothing was done, as a short code.
`truncated`	No
`truncatedNote`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered by structured fields. The description adds behavior the annotations cannot: the explicit fallback of 'a plain note that none is built yet', the 30-day window on completed/blocked/expired steps, and the fact that every line carries an id (`item`, or `step` for waiting steps). It does not discuss pagination or ordering, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

It is two sentences and front-loads the resource and read-only nature, but the first sentence is a long chain of nested parentheticals that is hard to parse on a single read. The trigger-question list is efficient, yet the content could be broken into shorter clauses without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description did not need to enumerate return fields, but doing so helps selection for a plan-inspection tool and is accurate. Coverage of the empty-state behavior, the time window and the id-bearing lines makes it sufficient for an agent to call and interpret it correctly; only ordering/pagination semantics are unaddressed.

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%, with both `account` and `language` documented including the omit-for-all default and the business-language default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about either parameter; its only extra detail ('Every line carries its id') describes output, not inputs. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete resource (Taseli's work plan) and enumerates its parts: stage, goals, owner's rules, current and next actions, if-then branches, review cadence, plus pending/done/blocked steps in the last 30 days. That is far more specific than the title alone and lets an agent distinguish it from get_decision, list_decisions and what_we_did. It stops short of explicitly stating how it differs from those siblings, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Concrete trigger questions ('what's the plan?', 'what's next?', 'what are you waiting for?', 'when do we add budget?', 'what did the plan do?') give the agent a clear sense of when to reach for this tool. There are no exclusions or named alternative tools for adjacent questions, so it is clear context without routing guidance.

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

All Taseli 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?