OTP

Update an operating plan section

update_operating_plan_section

Destructive

Update fields in one section of the organization's active Operating Plan. Provide the section_key and ONLY the fields to change; fields you do not name are preserved (merge, never replace). Common fields: foundation = purpose, mission, values (the core values, one per line), ideal_customer; destination = year_target, ten_year_target, revenue_goal, profit_goal, defining_metric; annual_game_plan = primary_objective, strategic_initiatives, key_outcomes. List-like fields are newline-separated strings.

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": {
      "section_key": "<section_key>",
      "fields": "<fields>"
    },
    "name": "update_operating_plan_section"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fields`	Yes	Field key -> new value, only the fields to change. List-like fields take one entry per line.
`section_key`	Yes	Which strategy section to update

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds the crucial counter-context that the operation merges rather than replaces, which materially softens the perceived risk. It stops short of covering failure behavior (unknown field keys, invalid section_key) or what the call returns.

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-loaded with purpose and the merge rule, then the field catalog. The section-by-section list is dense but every entry is actionable; nothing is filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with a nested free-form object and no output schema, the description covers the primary path well but leaves gaps: no return-value expectation, no error semantics for unknown field keys, and no field vocabulary for five of the eight enumerated sections.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description clearly exceeds it by enumerating the accepted field names for foundation, destination, and annual_game_plan and noting newline-separated list encoding. However, five of the eight section_key values have no field documentation, and the free-form 'fields' object (additionalProperties: string) gives no guidance on unrecognized keys.

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?

Specific verb (update) plus resource (fields in one section of the active Operating Plan), with the partial-update scope made explicit via 'ONLY the fields to change'. It doesn't explicitly name the read-side sibling (get_operating_plan / get_sections), so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 concrete invocation guidance: supply section_key plus only the changed fields, and explains the merge contract ('fields you do not name are preserved'). It does not state prerequisites (permissions, which plan is 'active') or when to prefer this over update_kpi/update_rock-style siblings.

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

All OTP 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?