PlanManager MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the plan_id is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, scoring 2 for partial transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get the full details and structure of a plan') and adds necessary scope ('including all its steps'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured, earning a 5.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (simple retrieval with one parameter), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and parameter semantics. With the output schema reducing the need to explain returns, it's complete enough for a basic tool but has clear gaps, scoring 3.

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

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

The input schema has 1 parameter (plan_id) with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description doesn't mention the parameter at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher; the description implies the parameter indirectly by referring to 'a plan', but doesn't add meaningful details like format or constraints, resulting in a score of 3.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full details and structure of a plan'), including the scope ('including all its steps'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_plans' (which likely lists multiple plans) and 'get_plan_statistics' (which focuses on metrics). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_plans' or other detail-oriented tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid plan_id), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'search_plans' (which might return partial details) or 'list_plans' (for overviews). This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage, scoring 2 for minimal guidance.

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