Retrieve saved base layout plans stored in plans/. Use this to review existing plan files and select one for validation or rendering.
List saved plans in plans/.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "plan_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, which is transparent, but the description does not disclose ordering, error behavior, return format, or whether it includes details beyond names. Adequate for a simple list, but minimal.
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 six-word sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action ('List') and directly communicates the operation and scope.
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's simplicity (0 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential invocation need. It could be improved by stating the output shape, but for a zero-argument list operation the description is largely sufficient.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description is not required to explain parameters. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not conflict with or misrepresent the empty schema.
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 'List saved plans in plans/' provides a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('saved plans'), and a location ('plans/'). It conveys the core operation and distinguishes it from mutation tools like plan_new or plan_save, though it does not explicitly name alternative siblings.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like plan_status, plan_pieces, or plan_load. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations, leaving the decision entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.