Skip to main content
Glama

PlanExe

by io.github.PlanExeOrg

plan_retry

Retry a plan that is currently in failed or stopped state. Pass the plan_id and optionally model_profile (defaults to baseline). The plan is reset to pending, prior artifacts are cleared, and the same plan_id is requeued for processing. Returns PLAN_NOT_FOUND when plan_id is unknown and PLAN_NOT_FAILED when the plan is not in failed or stopped state.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
plan_idYesUUID of the failed plan to retry.
model_profileNoModel profile used for retry. Defaults to baseline.baseline

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
stateNoCurrent plan state after retry request.
plan_idNoPlan UUID that was retried (same ID as the failed or stopped plan).
sse_urlNoOptional completion detector. Run `curl -N <sse_url>` in a background shell — the stream auto-closes when the plan reaches a terminal state (completed/failed/stopped). For structured progress data, use plan_status instead.
retried_atNoUTC timestamp when the retry request was accepted.
model_profileNoModel profile assigned to the retry request.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / sse_url / description
      Previous value: -"Optional completion detector. Run `curl -N <sse_url>` in a background shell — the stream auto-closes when the plan reaches a terminal state (completed/failed). For structured progress data, use plan_status instead."New value: +"Optional completion detector. Run `curl -N <sse_url>` in a background shell — the stream auto-closes when the plan reaches a terminal state (completed/failed/stopped). For structured progress data, use plan_status instead."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / plan_id / description
      Previous value: -"Plan UUID that was retried (same ID as the failed plan)."New value: +"Plan UUID that was retried (same ID as the failed or stopped plan)."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / state / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "enum": [
-      "pending",
-      "processing",
-      "completed",
-      "failed"
-    ],
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "enum": [
+      "pending",
+      "processing",
+      "completed",
+      "failed",
+      "stopped"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / sse_url / description
      Previous value: -"GET endpoint returning text/event-stream with real-time plan progress. No API key required — the plan_id UUID serves as the access token. Usage: `curl -N <sse_url>`. Emits 'status' events on progress changes, 'heartbeat' every ~20 s, and a final 'complete' event (state completed/failed) then auto-closes. Alternative to polling plan_status."New value: +"Optional completion detector. Run `curl -N <sse_url>` in a background shell — the stream auto-closes when the plan reaches a terminal state (completed/failed). For structured progress data, use plan_status instead."
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / sse_url
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "GET endpoint returning text/event-stream with real-time plan progress. No API key required — the plan_id UUID serves as the access token. Usage: `curl -N <sse_url>`. Emits 'status' events on progress changes, 'heartbeat' every ~20 s, and a final 'complete' event (state completed/failed) then auto-closes. Alternative to polling plan_status.",
+  "title": "Sse Url"
+}
  5. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / plan_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "UUID of the failed plan to retry.",
+  "title": "Plan Id",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / task_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "UUID of the failed task to retry.",
-  "title": "Task Id",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "task_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "plan_id"
+]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / plan_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Plan UUID that was retried (same ID as the failed plan).",
+  "title": "Plan Id"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / state / description
      Previous value: -"Current task state after retry request."New value: +"Current plan state after retry request."
    • removedOutput schema / properties / task_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "description": "Task UUID that was retried (same ID as the failed task).",
-  "title": "Task Id"
-}
  6. Added

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

This description directly contradicts the annotations: the annotation destructiveHint=false indicates the tool is not destructive, yet the description states 'prior artifacts are cleared'. Clearing artifacts is a destructive action. This is a serious inconsistency that fails to provide trustworthy behavioral disclosure, so the score is the minimum.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and state condition, followed by behavior and error results. It contains no fluff and every sentence adds value. However, it is somewhat long and could be tightened without losing information, so it doesn't achieve a perfect 5.

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?

The description covers the main action, preconditions, behavioral effects, and error conditions. An output schema exists, so return value details are not required. The main gap is the contradiction with the destructiveHint annotation, which undermines trust, but the description itself is otherwise complete for an agent to decide and invoke the tool.

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% for both parameters. The description only restates what is already in the schema (e.g., 'model_profile defaults to baseline') without adding extra semantic meaning, such as type constraints, dependencies, or edge cases. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Retry'), the target resource ('a plan'), and the exact condition ('currently in failed or stopped state'). It is specific and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly compare or contrast with the sibling tool plan_resume, so it misses the full 5-point bar for sibling differentiation.

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?

The description explicitly says the tool should be used when a plan is in 'failed or stopped state', which provides clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention any alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use plan_resume instead), so it lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance that would earn a 5.

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

All PlanExe toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct, non-overlapping purpose within the PlanExe workflow. For example, example_plans and example_prompts serve different preparatory functions, while plan_create, plan_status, plan_stop, plan_resume, and plan_retry handle distinct lifecycle stages of plan generation. No tools appear to duplicate functionality, making selection clear for an agent.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, with all tools using snake_case and clear action-object pairs (e.g., plan_create, plan_status, plan_stop). The naming is predictable and readable, with no deviations in style or convention across the set.

Tool Count5/5

With 11 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of generating and managing strategic project plans. Each tool serves a specific role in the workflow, from preparation (example_prompts, model_profiles) to creation (plan_create), monitoring (plan_status), lifecycle management (plan_stop, plan_resume, plan_retry), and feedback (send_feedback). The count is appropriate and avoids bloat or gaps.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides complete coverage for the plan generation domain, including CRUD-like operations (create, list, status, stop, resume, retry) and supporting functions (examples, model selection, file retrieval, feedback). There are no obvious gaps; agents can handle the entire lifecycle from prompt drafting to plan retrieval and error recovery without dead ends.

Resources