PlanManager MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions searching by name or description but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, sorting), or any limitations like rate limits or authentication needs, which are critical for a search tool.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a simple Args section. It avoids unnecessary words, but the structure could be improved by integrating the parameter info more seamlessly rather than as a separate list.

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 has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks context on behavior, usage, and parameter details. For a simple search tool, it's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that 'keyword' is a search term for name or description, which provides basic meaning beyond the schema's title 'Keyword'. However, with 1 parameter and no details on format, constraints, or examples, it doesn't fully compensate for the low coverage.

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 the tool searches plans by name or description, which is a clear purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'list_plans' or 'get_plan_details' that might also retrieve plan information, making it somewhat vague in comparison.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_plans' and 'get_plan_details', the description lacks context on whether this is for fuzzy matching, filtering, or specific use cases, leaving usage unclear.

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