Retrieve the current inbox plan and progress, including status, per-run budget, completion progress, and next items by category; returns a no-plan status when none exists.
Return the current inbox plan and progress. Returns {status: 'no-plan'} if no plan exists. Includes: status, budget_per_run, progress, next items in each category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the empty-state response {status: 'no-plan'} and enumerates the returned fields (status, budget_per_run, progress, next items per category). It does not state that it is strictly read-only/side-effect free or what happens if no inbox exists, which 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short lines, front-loaded with the core action, then the null-state behavior, then the returned fields. No filler or repetition; every sentence adds information an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling it.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: the shape of a successful response and the sentinel empty-plan response. Nothing essential an agent needs before calling it is absent.
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?
Zero parameters, so the schema baseline applies and there is no parameter meaning to add. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter claims and instead spends its space on return semantics.
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?
"Return the current inbox plan and progress" names a specific verb (return/read) and resource (inbox plan), which cleanly separates it from siblings like approve_inbox_plan and execute_inbox_file_batch that mutate or act on the plan. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating scope boundaries explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read step of the plan workflow, and the documented {status: 'no-plan'} case signals it is used to check plan state before acting. No explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g. whether a vault root must be set), and no named alternatives such as approve_inbox_plan or get_inbox_content_batch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.