plan_getRetrieve a stored write plan by ID to review operations, risk, proposed changes, masked requests, and status without exposing its token.
Show a stored write plan (ops, risk, changes, requests masked, status). Never returns its token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan_id | Yes | Plan id returned by the plan_* tool | |
| client_id | No | Client id from clients_list; empty uses the only client |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value: it discloses that requests are masked and that the token is never returned, which are security-relevant traits not captured by annotations.
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?
A single sentence with the core action front-loaded and the return contents compactly parenthesized. No wasted words.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully carries the burden of describing return fields and the withheld token. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it could say more about status values or failure modes.
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 100%, so the schema already documents plan_id and client_id fully. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Show) and resource (a stored write plan) and enumerates the returned contents (ops, risk, changes, requests masked, status). It is clearly a by-id retrieval, distinct from plan_list, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance and does not distinguish itself from plan_list or rollback_plan. The only hint of a precondition (plan_id comes from a plan_* tool) lives in the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.