Planning System MCP Server

plan_analysis

Analyze plans to identify impacts of delays, blocks, or removals, find critical paths, detect bottlenecks, and verify coherence.

Instructions

Advanced plan reads: impact analysis (delay/block/remove), critical path, bottleneck list, or coherence check.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "plan_id": "<plan_id>",
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "plan_analysis"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`plan_id`	Yes
`type`	Yes
`node_id`	No
`scenario`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.8.1Apr 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations provided. Description says 'reads' implying read-only, but does not disclose error behaviors, auth needs, or what happens for invalid inputs.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Single sentence but packs multiple analysis types. Could be better structured but is not excessively long.

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 4 parameters with enums and no output schema, the description lacks detail on when to use node_id or scenario, and what the tool returns.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%. Description does not explain parameters like plan_id, type, node_id, scenario. No information on dependencies (e.g., node_id needed for impact).

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool performs advanced plan reads, listing specific analysis types: impact, critical path, bottlenecks, coherence. It distinguishes from siblings like list_plans or update_plan.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_plans or update_plan. No mentioning of prerequisites or context.

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