Search a PLAN.md file to locate tasks by matching a substring, returning matching tasks from your project plan. Specify optional plan path or default to nearest PLAN.md.
Locate tasks by substring match (JSON).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| plan_path | No | Optional path to PLAN.md (relative to cwd or absolute). Default: walk up from cwd to nearest PLAN.md. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals only a substring-match mechanism and possibly a JSON output format; it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, which fields are matched, case sensitivity, or what the returned data contains.
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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, but the ambiguous '(JSON)' and lack of any structured elaboration make it slightly under-specified rather than optimally structured.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read-style tool, the description gives the basic action and a JSON hint, and the schema documents plan_path. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about what a caller receives and how the substring match is applied.
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?
Schema coverage is 50%; 'text' has no schema description, and 'plan_path' does. The description clarifies that 'text' is a substring to match, which adds some meaning, but it does not specify which task fields are searched or any matching rules, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.
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 uses a specific verb ('Locate'), a clear resource ('tasks'), and a defined search method ('substring match'), which distinguishes it from sibling task-mutation tools. The parenthetical '(JSON)' is slightly ambiguous—it likely indicates output format but is not explicit—so this is not a 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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description does not name sibling tools, state that this is the only substring-search option, or specify when it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.