Skip to main content
Glama
PhilippMT

Software Planning Tool

by PhilippMT

save_plan

Store software implementation plans to maintain project progress and ensure consistent task management during development.

Instructions

Save the current implementation plan

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
planYesThe implementation plan text to save

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'save_plan' tool. It checks for an active goal, parses the provided plan into todos using formatPlanAsTodos, adds each todo to storage, and returns a success message.
    case 'save_plan': {
      if (!this.currentGoal) {
        throw new McpError(
          ErrorCode.InvalidRequest,
          'No active goal. Start a new planning session first.'
        );
      }
    
      const { plan } = request.params.arguments as { plan: string };
      const todos = formatPlanAsTodos(plan);
    
      for (const todo of todos) {
        await storage.addTodo(this.currentGoal.id, todo);
      }
    
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: `Successfully saved ${todos.length} todo items to the implementation plan.`,
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • src/index.ts:128-140 (registration)
    Registration of the 'save_plan' tool in the list of available tools, including its description and input schema.
      name: 'save_plan',
      description: 'Save the current implementation plan',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          plan: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'The implementation plan text to save',
          },
        },
        required: ['plan'],
      },
    },
  • Input schema definition for the 'save_plan' tool.
      name: 'save_plan',
      description: 'Save the current implementation plan',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          plan: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'The implementation plan text to save',
          },
        },
        required: ['plan'],
      },
    },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('save'), but doesn't specify whether this creates a new plan, updates an existing one, requires authentication, has side effects (e.g., overwriting data), or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details if expanded. Every word earns its place, but it's slightly under-specified rather than concise.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'save' entails behaviorally, what the return value might be, or how it interacts with the planning context implied by sibling tools. For a tool that likely modifies state, this lack of detail is inadequate.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'plan' parameter clearly documented as 'The implementation plan text to save'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format constraints or examples. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param info in the description.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the action ('save') and the resource ('current implementation plan'), which provides a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it's somewhat vague about what constitutes 'current' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_planning' or 'add_todo', which might involve plan-related operations. It avoids being a tautology or misleading, but lacks specificity.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a plan must be started first), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'start_planning' or 'add_todo'. This leaves the agent with no context for tool selection beyond the basic purpose.

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/PhilippMT/Software-planning-mcp'

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