Read the project's plan.md to access current ideas, active plans, and next steps. Get an immediate status check, or see 'No plan found' if the plan is uninitialized.
Read plan.md — the team's intent (ideas, active plans, next steps).
Returns 'No plan found.' if not initialized. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and explicitly states 'Read-only,' which signals safety. It also discloses the exact return value when plan.md is not initialized, giving the agent useful edge-case awareness beyond a simple 'read plan' statement.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the verb, resource, and content; the second adds the edge case and read-only nature. Every sentence earns its place.
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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers what is read, what content it returns, and the not-initialized case. No critical operational detail is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 already covers 100% of them, so the description is not required to explain parameter behavior. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is satisfied.
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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and names the exact resource 'plan.md', then defines the content as 'the team's intent (ideas, active plans, next steps).' This is clear and distinct from generic read tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_summary or get_context.
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 implies it should be used when an agent needs the team's current plan or intent, and it covers the 'not initialized' edge case. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over sibling read tools such as get_instructions or get_context, nor does it state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.