Retrieve the current research plan and its approval state in Open Science. Use it to review pending plans and identify required feedback or approvals.
Read the current plan and approval state. Approve or give feedback in Open Science UI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description says 'Approve or give feedback in Open Science UI,' which implies the tool mutates state. That directly contradicts the annotations. The description also fails to clarify return shape or behavior for missing sessions.
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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded. The second sentence does not earn its place and actively confuses the read-only nature of the tool, making the overall structure only passable.
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 no output schema, the description should explain what the agent will get back. It mentions 'plan and approval state' but omits approval state details, session_id mapping, and error behavior, while adding contradictory UI guidance. This is incomplete for reliable tool selection and 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter, session_id, and the tool description never explains how session_id selects the plan or approval state. The parameter name is suggestive, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 first sentence names a specific read operation on a clear resource ('current plan and approval state'), so the core purpose is clear. However, the second sentence introduces approve/feedback actions that are not read operations, and the description does not differentiate it from siblings like get_status or get_session.
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 is provided about when to use get_plan versus alternative read tools such as get_status or get_session. The mention of approving and giving feedback suggests user actions in a UI rather than a usage condition or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.