Fetch a project iteration by version, returning its goal, tasks, and progress from PLAN.md. Specify a version to review or track iteration status.
JSON for one iteration by version (goal, tasks, progress).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the result is JSON with goal, tasks, and progress; it does not mention whether the operation is safely read-only, what happens for missing/invalid versions, or how plan_path resolution affects the result.
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 sentence with no filler, and the most important qualifier ('by version') is placed early. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could afford a bit more behavioral detail.
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 get tool with two flat parameters, the description is close to adequate: it names the resource and the return contents. However, it lacks explicit usage context, sibling differentiation, and any statement about behavior on missing data or plan_path handling, so an agent may need to infer edge-case behavior.
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 schema documents plan_path well but gives no description for version, and the description's 'by version' provides minimal semantic meaning for the required parameter. That partially compensates for the 50% schema description coverage, but details like version matching or format are left unspecified.
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 states a clear operation (get), a specific resource (one iteration), and a key qualifier (by version), and it lists the returned contents (goal, tasks, progress). It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, but 'by version' helps distinguish it from get_current_iteration and list_iterations.
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?
There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_current_iteration, list_iterations, or show_current_iteration. The phrase 'by version' implies a selection condition, but it does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice or when it is not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.