Retrieve the current implementation plan as formatted text to review project tasks and progress.
Get the current implementation plan as formatted text
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": "get_plan"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, what happens if no plan exists, or whether there are side effects. The description is minimal and lacks detail about error conditions or output nuances.
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 sentence that communicates the core purpose with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and front-loaded, immediately stating what the tool does.
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 simplicity of the tool (no params, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate but lacks details on the expected format of the 'formatted text' and possible error conditions if no plan is available. It is complete enough for a trivial getter, but could benefit from mentioning when the plan is populated or how the output is structured.
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 the schema shows no properties, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate; a baseline score of 4 is warranted for a 0-param tool.
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 clearly identifies the action ('Get') and the target resource ('current implementation plan'), and specifies the output format ('as formatted text'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_todos and save_plan by focusing on the overall plan, not individual todo items.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_todos or start_planning. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.