Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wardogs-mcp

wardogs-mcp

by MudcrabWarrior
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

plan_status

Get a summary of the current plan, including supply cost, breakdown, and validation issues, to identify problems before rendering.

Instructions

Summary, supply cost, breakdown and validation issues for the current plan.

Tool call template

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_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.3

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It lists what the tool returns, which implies a read-only status query, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or what happens when no current plan exists. This is acceptable for a simple no-parameter status tool but not fully transparent.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, and the key content categories are front-loaded. It is slightly fragmentary as a bare noun phrase, but it remains appropriately sized for a simple status tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple, has no parameters, and no output schema, yet the description still leaves some gaps: it does not clarify how 'current plan' is determined or whether a plan must be loaded first. It is minimally sufficient for an agent to invoke, but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema is empty with zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the description is not required to document parameters. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies here.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly identifies the resource ('the current plan') and the specific categories of information returned: summary, supply cost, breakdown, and validation issues. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like plan_list and plan_new, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'view'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as plan_list, plan_load, or plan_pieces. The phrase 'for the current plan' implies context but there are no explicit prerequisites, exclusions, or routing cues.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools