Skip to main content
Glama

List what a shot plan is missing

shoot_plan_missing_details
Read-only

Lists the questions to put to the person who knows the film, so that more of the plan can be checked. Each question uses the plan's own names, says which paths in the plan the answer fills in and which checks it unlocks, and says whether it blocks the assessment of a scene. Do not invent an answer to silence a question: when the honest answer is none, say so in the plan with a none declaration (shoot_plan_format explains). Input: plan, a dpl.plan/1 object sent inline. Output: dpl.missing/1. No AI model runs; nothing is stored. 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

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": {
      "plan": "<plan>"
    },
    "name": "shoot_plan_missing_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
planYesThe plan itself: a dpl.plan/1 JSON object (not text inside a string). Call shoot_plan_format for the schema links and an example.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that no AI model runs, nothing is stored, an agent key from a Shoot Plan account is required, and the call is free and exempt from the account's 3 free projects. It also gives concrete operational limits: 8 MB plans, 120 calls per minute, 5,000 per day.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose, then moves to the output shape, the guarantees and the limits. One sentence about not inventing answers and using a none declaration is tangential for a read-only listing tool and slightly blurs what this tool actually does, but the overall structure earns its space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. The description covers the input format, the auth requirement, the cost model and the rate and size limits, which is everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% and the single param is already documented in the schema as a dpl.plan/1 JSON object. The description adds only that the plan is sent inline as an object with a pointer to shoot_plan_format, which is a marginal gain over the schema rather than new semantic depth.

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: it lists the questions that reveal what a dpl.plan is missing, including which paths each answer fills and which checks it unlocks. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the nearest siblings such as shoot_plan_check or shoot_plan_coverage_status, so the agent must infer the boundary from the wording.

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?

The purpose statement ('so that more of the plan can be checked') implies the situation for using it, and the description points to shoot_plan_format for the none declaration. But it never says when to prefer this over shoot_plan_check or shoot_plan_coverage_status, and the 'do not invent an answer' advice actually addresses editing the plan, not invoking this read-only listing tool.

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.

Resources