Skip to main content
Glama

round_1_context

Retrieve the initial prompt for a structured planning session. Provide a problem description, then generate your plan, and finally save the result.

Instructions

Get the Round 1 prompt — call this first, then generate your plan, then call round_1 to save

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
problemDescriptionYesThe problem or requirement to plan for

Implementation Reference

  • src/server.ts:82-93 (registration)
    Registration of the 'round_1_context' tool on the MCP server, with schema (problemDescription) and handler callback that calls getRound1Context.
    // ─── round_1_context ──────────────────────────────────────────────
    server.tool(
      "round_1_context",
      "Get the Round 1 prompt — call this first, then generate your plan, then call round_1 to save",
      {
        problemDescription: z.string().describe("The problem or requirement to plan for"),
      },
      async (params) => {
        const prompt = await getRound1Context(projectRoot, params.problemDescription);
        return { content: [{ type: "text", text: prompt }] };
      }
    );
  • The getRound1Context function: reads config for the project name, then delegates to generateRound1Prompt.
    /**
     * Get the Round 1 prompt for a given project and problem.
     * This is called to provide context to the model before it generates its plan.
     */
    export async function getRound1Context(
      projectRoot: string,
      problemDescription: string
    ): Promise<string> {
      const config = await readConfig(projectRoot);
      const projectName = config?.projectName ?? "Unknown Project";
      return generateRound1Prompt(projectName, problemDescription);
    }
  • generateRound1Prompt: builds the prompt string injected into the model with project name and problem description.
    export function generateRound1Prompt(
      projectName: string,
      problemDescription: string
    ): string {
      return `You are participating in a multi-model planning session using PolyPlan.
    
    PROJECT: ${projectName}
    ROUND: 1 of 3 — Individual Plan
    
    PROBLEM/REQUIREMENT:
    ${problemDescription}
    
    Your task: Create a detailed implementation plan for this problem. 
    Be thorough. Cover architecture, file structure, edge cases, dependencies, 
    open questions you have, and any risks you foresee.
    
    This plan will be reviewed by other AI models in the next round.
    Save your plan with clear section headers.`;
    }
  • The input schema for round_1_context: requires a single 'problemDescription' string.
    {
      problemDescription: z.string().describe("The problem or requirement to plan for"),
    },
  • readConfig: reads .polyplan/config.json to get the projectName used in the prompt.
    export async function readConfig(projectRoot: string): Promise<PolyPlanConfig | null> {
      const configPath = path.join(projectRoot, CONFIG_FILE);
    
      try {
        const raw = await fs.readFile(configPath, "utf-8");
        return JSON.parse(raw) as PolyPlanConfig;
      } catch {
        return null;
      }
    }
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. Description indicates a read-only retrieval of a prompt, but does not disclose return format, prerequisites, or potential side effects. Adequate but not detailed.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single sentence with clear instruction. No redundant information, every word serves a purpose.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description is sufficient for basic usage. However, it could mention what the prompt returns (e.g., a string). Sibling tools are listed but not explained, which might confuse.

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 has 1 parameter with description 'The problem or requirement to plan for'. Description does not add extra meaning beyond schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states 'Get the Round 1 prompt' with a specific verb and resource. It also provides a sequence: call this first, then generate plan, then call round_1 to save. This distinguishes it from siblings like round_1 (save) and round_2_context (get round 2 prompt).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly instructs 'call this first, then generate your plan, then call round_1 to save'. This gives clear when-to-use and sequencing, effectively differentiating from sibling tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/IMAFDI/polyplan-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server