FoxPlug

set_plan

Set the current plan, intent, or priorities for a project in FoxPlug (source: Claude Code). Call this when you set or change what a project is working toward, so FoxPlug knows the goal your later work is measured against. It replaces the project's previous current plan. Free — it never posts anything. Do NOT include secrets, keys, or tokens in the plan.

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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "plan": "<plan>"
    },
    "name": "set_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`plan`	Yes	The current plan, intent, or priorities for this project, in 1 to 5 sentences. No secrets.
`horizon`	No	Optional. The time frame this plan covers (e.g. 'this week', 'this sprint').
`project`	Yes	The project this work belongs to — a FoxPlug project name, domain, or repo (e.g. 'foxplug', 'foxplug.com', or 'owner/lcncagents'). Matched case-insensitively against your own FoxPlug projects and any repo/deploy routes. If it can't be resolved, nothing is written (not dropped) and the reply lists your project names so you can retry with an exact one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the overwrite behavior ('It replaces the project's previous current plan'), that it is free and 'never posts anything', and a data-handling constraint about secrets. It does not contradict readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false, though 'replaces' arguably deserves a note that prior plan content is lost rather than a mere mention.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then the trigger, then behavioral facts and a safety warning. Three sentences earn their place; 'Free — it never posts anything' is slightly chatty but does carry useful information.

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 three-parameter write tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the essential extra context: overwrite semantics, no external posting, and a secrets warning. Only the absence of explicit remediation guidance beyond what the schema already states (resolve failure lists project names) keeps it from a 5.

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 plan length, horizon examples, and project resolution/failure behavior are already documented in the schema. The description only reiterates the 'no secrets' constraint on plan and adds no syntax or format detail beyond structured fields, which is the expected baseline here.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ('Set the current plan, intent, or priorities for a project in FoxPlug') and clarifies scope with 'replaces the project's previous current plan', which implicitly separates it from the read-only sibling get_plan_status. It does not name a sibling outright, so it stops short of the top mark.

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?

Gives a clear trigger: 'Call this when you set or change what a project is working toward', and frames the downstream benefit (later work measured against the goal). No explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives are given, so there is some room left to inference.

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

All FoxPlug tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?