Planning System MCP Server

share_plan

Update a plan's visibility and manage collaborator access in one atomic operation.

Instructions

Atomically change a plan's visibility and add/remove collaborators in one call. Collaborators are specified by user_id (email-based invites stay UI-only for now). Caller must be plan owner or admin.

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>"
    },
    "name": "share_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`plan_id`	Yes
`visibility`	No
`add_collaborators`	No
`remove_collaborators`	No	Array of user_ids to remove from the plan.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.8.1Apr 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: atomicity, authentication requirements, and the limitation that collaborators must be specified by user_id. However, it does not describe failure modes, side effects, or return values, which would be expected for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraints. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 description covers the main function, constraints, and a limitation, but lacks details on return values, error handling, and what happens if the atomic operation fails. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 description adds context beyond the schema by explaining that collaborators are specified by user_id (not email) and emphasizing atomicity. However, schema coverage is only 25%, and the description does not elaborate on role meanings or validation constraints.

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 atomically changes plan visibility and manages collaborators, distinguishing it from other plan tools like delete_plan or update_plan. It uses specific verbs and resources, and highlights the atomicity.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description specifies prerequisites (caller must be owner or admin) and notes that email-based invites are UI-only, providing guidance on when not to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools like invite_member or remove_member.

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