ABS · AI Business System

Read a plan

get_plan

Read-only

One of this account's plans by its code: its progress while generating, the whole plan in Markdown once ready (status draft).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	Plan code from create_plan or list_plans

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Where the user reviews and submits it in ABS
`code`	Yes	Plan code, e.g. DRF-20261015-0001
`error`	No	Why it failed, when status is aborted
`status`	Yes	generating while ABS is still building it (check again with get_plan), draft when ready, aborted or stalled when it failed, submitted once the user submits it in ABS
`markdown`	No	The plan in Markdown: phases, steps, schedule, forms, sources, coverage and gaps
`progress`	No	Stages done so far, while generating
`question`	Yes	The request the plan was made from
`no_flow_reason`	No	Why no ready-made flow fitted, when that happened

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 15, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / error

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Why it failed, when status is aborted",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / progress

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Stages done so far, while generating",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / status / description

Previous value: -"draft until the user submits it in ABS"New value: +"generating while ABS is still building it (check again with get_plan), draft when ready, aborted or stalled when it failed, submitted once the user submits it in ABS"

First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the two lifecycle states returned ('progress while generating' versus 'the whole plan in Markdown once ready'), which the annotations do not convey.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource first and then the return states. It is efficient, though the parenthetical '(status draft)' is cryptic and slightly muddies an otherwise clean line.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: it names the resource, the identifier, and the two return states. Error or not-found behavior is not addressed, but with an output schema present and only one required param, that is a minor omission.

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 the single 'code' parameter, and the schema already tells the agent where the code comes from (create_plan or list_plans). The description's 'by its code' adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource (fetch one plan by its code) and even characterizes the payload at each stage. It implicitly contrasts with list_plans by saying 'One of this account's plans by its code', though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for retrieving a single plan once you have a code, versus list_plans for enumeration. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance, so the agent must infer the routing itself.

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

All ABS · AI Business System 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.