intempus_get_my_planningRetrieve your planned work for a chosen period, defaulting to the next 14 days, to view upcoming scheduled tasks.
Your planned work in a period (default: the next 14 days).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail, the default 14-day window, but says nothing about return shape, volume, or timezone/scheduling semantics.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the default value is placed where it is most useful. It is arguably too terse to serve its purpose, but nothing is wasted.
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?
With two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of what a 'planned work' entry contains, the agent cannot know what the result represents before calling. For a query tool with zero annotation-independent documentation, this is thin.
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 coverage is 0%: neither 'from' nor 'to' has any description. The description mentions only the default window and never explains the two parameters, their format, or range inclusivity, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific resource ('your planned work') and scope ('in a period'), which contrasts adequately with siblings like intempus_get_my_balances and intempus_list_my_work_reports. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this vs. related tools such as intempus_list_my_work_reports or intempus_register_time. The only usage-adjacent information is the default period, which is a behavior, not a usage condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.