TeamShared

memory_strategic_plan_get

Fetch one strategic plan, optionally with the full OKR tree.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`plan_id`	Yes	Plan UUID
`include_tree`	No	Include objectives, key results, initiatives

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 19, 2026
RemovedSep 25, 2026

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 10, 2026

addedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +true
```

removedOutput schema / properties

Removed value: -{
-  "result": {
-    "anyOf": [
-      {
-        "additionalProperties": true,
-        "type": "object"
-      },
-      {
-        "type": "null"
-      }
-    ]
-  }
-}

removedOutput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "result"
-]
```
removedOutput schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-result
```
Removed value: -true
```

First observedAug 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and 'Fetch' reasonably implies a read-only operation. The 'optionally with the full OKR tree' note hints at depth control, but it largely restates the include_tree parameter and discloses nothing about permissions, errors, or format.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and parameter coverage is complete. The only real gap is the absence of usage/routing guidance, which 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 both parameters (plan_id and include_tree) are already documented. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (one strategic plan), and the singular 'one' implicitly separates it from memory_strategic_plan_list. It stops short of naming the sibling it differs from, so an agent must infer the list/get boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as memory_strategic_plan_list or the strategic entity/objective getters. The agent gets no explicit routing signal.

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

All TeamShared 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.