plan_setupGenerate a conflict-aware, secret-free plan for canonical instructions and account profiles to avoid setup conflicts and secret leaks. Never writes files.
Create a conflict-aware, secret-free plan for canonical instructions and account profiles. Never writes files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | Yes | ||
| consent | Yes | ||
| manifest | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so 'Never writes files' largely restates readOnlyHint. The description does add genuine behavioral color beyond annotations by promising conflict detection and secret-free output. It says nothing about how consent gates execution or whether a plan can expire.
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?
Two tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core guarantee ('Never writes files') is placed last for emphasis rather than buried. Slightly abstract adjectival stacking ('conflict-aware, secret-free') costs a point.
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?
For a read-only planning tool with full annotations and an output schema, the safety story is adequately covered and return values need no explanation. However, the undocumented nested manifest and the unexplained consent flag leave real gaps for correct invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across three required parameters, including a deeply nested manifest with required version, active_profile, profiles, instructions, and tools. The description's phrases 'canonical instructions' and 'account profiles' only loosely gesture at manifest.instructions and manifest.profiles; root and consent are never explained.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create ... plan for canonical instructions and account profiles') with meaningful qualifiers ('conflict-aware, secret-free'). It implicitly separates itself from the write-side sibling apply_setup via 'Never writes files', but never names that sibling, so an agent must infer the plan/apply split.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (the required consent flag), and no reference to apply_setup as the follow-up action. The read-only preview intent is only weakly implied by 'Never writes files'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.