get_planEverything about one plan, by name, other published name, or handle (for example The Heron or the-heron): specs, footprint, foundation options, garage, ceilings, roof pitch, framing, smallest lot it suits, photos and floor plans, every package with its current and regular price, the full design write-up, the study set link and price, how to request changes, and its page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns additional credit by disclosing the breadth of returned data (specs, pricing with current and regular price, packages, study set, change-request path) despite there being no output schema, though it stays silent on not-found/ambiguity behavior.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with the key fact ('one plan') first and identifier formats immediately after. The long trailing enumeration of return fields is dense but justified given the absence of an output schema; still, it reads as a run-on list rather than structured content.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers identifier formats and return payload comprehensively. The remaining gap is failure/ambiguity handling and any prerequisite (e.g., whether unpublished plans resolve), which matters for a lookup keyed on free-text names.
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 for the single 'plan' parameter is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it states the accepted identifier forms (name, other published name, handle) and gives a concrete pair of examples ('The Heron' or 'the-heron'), which resolves the display-name-vs-slug ambiguity an agent would otherwise hit.
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?
The description opens with a specific resource and scope: 'Everything about one plan', which unambiguously separates it from the plural search_plans and plans_for_lot siblings. It then enumerates the exact payload (specs, pricing, packages, photos, study set), so an agent knows what it gets before opening the 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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: it is the detail lookup for a single known plan. There is no explicit routing guidance such as 'use search_plans first if you don't have a name' or when to prefer plans_for_lot, and no mention of what happens on no match or ambiguous matches.
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.