Shoot Plan

How to write a plan the checks can read

shoot_plan_format

Read-only

Returns what you need to write or repair a plan that the checks can read: links to the JSON Schemas, the shortest valid plan, a worked example of a two-person scene that the checks find nothing wrong with, and a summary of the details that switch each check on (which is why a thin plan comes back "not assessed"). Call it first if you are about to write a plan. Input: none. Output: {schemas, smallest_plan, example_plan, details_that_make_checks_work, rules_of_thumb, rules_version}. No AI model runs; it needs no plan and stores nothing. Needs an agent key from a Shoot Plan account. Free, and it does not count toward the account's 3 free projects a month. Plans up to 8 MB and 120 calls a minute (5,000 a day).

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": "shoot_plan_format"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Far beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses that no AI model runs, no plan is needed, nothing is stored, an agent key is required, it is free and excluded from the 3-free-projects limit, and it names concrete rate limits (8 MB, 120 calls/min, 5,000/day). This is the full behavioral picture an agent needs before calling.

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 the purpose and the "call it first" instruction, then supporting facts. It is a dense single block, and listing the output fields duplicates what the output schema already carries, but no sentence is wasted.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a no-arg read-only reference tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, auth, cost, and limits — everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The output field summary is slightly redundant against the output schema but harmless.

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?

With zero parameters the baseline is 4, and "Input: none" plus the explicit output field list reinforces that no arguments exist. Nothing further about parameters is possible for a no-arg tool.

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?

States a specific verb-and-resource: it returns schema links, a smallest valid plan, a worked example, and the details that switch checks on. The enumerated contents leave no doubt what the tool produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with overlapping siblings like shoot_plan_example or shoot_plan_edit_guide, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

"Call it first if you are about to write a plan" gives an unambiguous triggering condition, and the note about thin plans coming back "not assessed" clarifies why it exists. There is no explicit when-not-to-call statement or named alternative, so it stops at a strong 4.

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

All Shoot Plan 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?