Skip to main content
Glama

BotSpot: AI Trading, Backtests and Bots

Complete plan

complete_plan
DestructiveIdempotent

Marks the active plan completed, blocked, or cancelled. When working in the current conversation, omit conversationId; never pass placeholders such as current, this, or active. If you include conversationId, it must be the real UUID. This closes plan state only and does not alter other tool access. Call complete_plan with status="completed" only when the root objective is actually done. outcome.status is plan-item satisfaction, not an external backtest/deployment/trade status. A completed item with outcome.status="unsuccessful" or outcome.status="partial" is audit evidence for an attempt, not proof the root objective is done; add or update explicit follow-up work that references that item, or use blocked/cancelled for a real blocker. Do not tell the user the plan is done while the root plan is still active.

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": "complete_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
planIdNoOptional plan UUID. In the current conversation, omit planId unless you already have the actual plan id from get_active_plan or a wake message. Never pass a plan item id here; target plan items through target.itemId or target.position.
statusNocompleted
summaryNo
conversationIdNoOptional conversation UUID. Omit this field to use the current MCP conversation context; never pass placeholders such as `current`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses scope ('closes plan state only and does not alter other tool access') and a key policy constraint about not telling the user the plan is done while the root plan is active. The main weakness is heavy reliance on an 'outcome.status' concept that has no corresponding parameter in the schema, which muddies rather than clarifies behavior.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the remainder is dense and repetitive: the 'never pass placeholders' rule is stated twice, and two sentences pivot to an outcome.status field that is not part of the input schema. Several sentences earn their place, but the structure mixes parameter guidance with behavioral doctrine in a way that slows parsing.

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 destructive, idempotent state-mutation tool with no output schema and four parameters, the description covers targeting rules and status semantics adequately. The gaps are the unexplained 'active' status and what summary is for, plus the dangling outcome.status reference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50% (status and summary are undocumented in the schema), and the description compensates by explaining what completed/blocked/cancelled mean and warning against placeholder conversationId/planId values. However it leaves the 'active' enum value and the summary field unaddressed, and discusses a non-existent outcome.status field.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence names a specific verb (marks) and resource (the active plan) plus the exact set of terminal statuses, which cleanly separates it from siblings such as update_plan_item, create_plan, and remove_plan_item. An agent can select it without 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.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit when-to-use rules: completed only when the root objective is actually done, blocked/cancelled for a real blocker, and follow-up items must be created instead of falsely completing. It also states when to omit conversationId and what to pass instead, and names a misuse pattern to avoid.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.