Skip to main content
Glama
V-Songbird

gemini-relay

by V-Songbird
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

gemini-plan

Generate a read-only, phased implementation blueprint for one task, detailing steps, dependencies, and risks using high-effort Gemini reasoning.

Instructions

Produce a read-only, phased implementation blueprint for one task — steps, dependencies, risks — on Gemini's highest reasoning effort. Never edits files and never answers general questions; use gemini-ask for those.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskYesThe architectural task, complex feature, or refactoring goal to plan out.
modelNoModel to plan with. Unlike gemini-ask, this tool pins 'gemini-3.8-flash-high' when you name none. 'gemini-3.1-pro-high' is the usual step up.
effortNoReasoning effort level (default: 'high'). Allocates deep thinking tokens for comprehensive plan design.high
addDirsNoAdditional directories to add to workspace context.
contextNoAdditional context, constraints, or reference files (supports @file syntax).
includeUsageNoInclude token metrics in the response.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / model / description
      Previous value: -"Gemini model to use (default: 'gemini-3.8-flash-high' or 'gemini-3.1-pro-high')."New value: +"Model to plan with. Unlike gemini-ask, this tool pins 'gemini-3.8-flash-high' when you name none. 'gemini-3.1-pro-high' is the usual step up."
  2. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: read-only nature, no file editing, restriction to a single task, and use of highest reasoning effort. It does not mention potential long-running behavior or response format, but the most important side-effect and scope constraints are clearly stated.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core behavior and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the exclusion/alternative is packed into the second. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only planning tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, exclusions, and a routing pointer. The main gap is the absence of behavior around response structure or asynchronous execution, but the schema handles parameters and the description gives sufficient context for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema; it only reinforces that the tool plans a task, which is already clear from the 'task' parameter. This is acceptable since the schema already documents each parameter.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb ('Produce') and identifies the deliverable: 'a read-only, phased implementation blueprint' with steps, dependencies, and risks. It clearly differentiates itself from gemini-ask by stating 'never answers general questions; use gemini-ask for those', so an agent can distinguish between the two without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('for one task' needing a blueprint) and when not to ('Never edits files and never answers general questions'), and names the alternative tool for general questions. This gives agents clear routing instructions with minimal inference.

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