plan_listList a client's recent write plans with ID, platform, title, status, and expiry to monitor content updates and deadlines.
List the newest write plans of a client (id, platform, title, status, expiry).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of entries to return | |
| 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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that results are the newest plans and by naming the returned fields, but it does not cover pagination, auth requirements, or rate limits beyond what the schema already provides.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical return-field list is compact and useful given the absence of an output schema.
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 read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and a fully described schema, the description is mostly complete: it states resource, scope, ordering, and returned fields. It could be stronger by clarifying when to prefer plan_get or how results relate to apply/rollback workflows.
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 both parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax, defaulting, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clear verb and resource ('List the newest write plans') and identifies the scope ('of a client') plus returned fields. It clearly distinguishes listing from plan_get or the various plan creation/apply siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 on when to use plan_list versus plan_get, rollback_plan, or the many plan mutation tools. The description implies a listing use case, but leaves the agent to infer where it fits in the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.