Rutherford MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

plan

Ask an ACP agent in architect persona to analyze a goal and produce an implementation approach, all in read-only mode so files stay unchanged.

Instructions

Ask one ACP agent for an implementation plan for goal under the architect persona (read-only).

A read-only delegate with the architect (planner) persona prepended: the agent designs an approach rather than implementing it. cli is an agent id (see capabilities); model is optional. files lists paths to put in scope. Always read-only -- planning never mutates the tree; implementing the plan is delegate in write mode.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`cli`	Yes
`goal`	Yes
`role`	No	architect
`files`	No
`model`	No
`timeout_s`	No
`working_dir`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv3.2.0Sep 5, 2026
Removedv3.1.0Jul 26, 2026
Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.2Jun 21, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / role / default
```
Previous value: -"planner"New value: +"architect"
```
Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.0Jun 15, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / safety_mode
```
Removed value: -{
-  "default": "read_only",
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
First observedv0.1.1May 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Always read-only -- planning never mutates the tree' and explains that the agent 'designs an approach rather than implementing it.' This covers the key behavioral traits, though it does not discuss timeout, working directory behavior, or failure modes; that keeps it below a 5.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose and read-only nature, and the second adds precise distinctions and parameter context. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

The description is largely complete for an agent invoking the tool: it explains what the tool does, its read-only guarantee, how it relates to `delegate`, and several key parameters. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. The main gap is the unexplained `timeout_s` and `working_dir` parameters, leaving some invocation context unclear.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the text must compensate for the bare schema. It explains `goal`, `cli` as an agent id, `model` as optional, `files` as paths in scope, and `role` implicitly via the architect persona. However, `timeout_s` and `working_dir` receive no semantic explanation, leaving two parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Ask one ACP agent for an implementation plan for `goal` under the `architect` persona (read-only).' It clearly identifies the resource, the goal, and the persona, and it explicitly contrasts with implementing via `delegate` in write mode, distinguishing it from the closest sibling.

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?

The description states when to use this tool ('planning') and when not to, saying 'implementing the plan is `delegate` in write mode.' It also clarifies the read-only constraint and notes `cli` is an agent id, pointing to `capabilities` for reference, and mentions `files` scopes paths. This gives explicit selection guidance vs alternatives.

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

Deploy Server