Returns canonical JSON and deterministic terminal/Markdown views of a plan tree for a given plan ID, so you can inspect and share consistent plan structures.
Return canonical JSON plus deterministic terminal and Markdown projections for a plan tree.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | No | ||
| plan_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output formats (canonical JSON, terminal, Markdown), which is useful, but it doesn't disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires specific parameters like root to be set, or any rate limits or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary output (canonical JSON) and then lists additional projections. It is concise and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more specific about the resource.
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?
Given that there are no annotations, no schema descriptions, and no output schema details (though an output schema exists, the description doesn't explain its structure or how it relates to the projections), the description is incomplete. It should at least clarify the parameter semantics and usage context.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't explain the parameters plan_id or root. It mentions 'plan tree' but doesn't clarify the role of root or the required plan_id. The schema itself has no descriptions, so the description fails to compensate.
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 names a specific action (return) and resource (plan tree), and it specifies the output format (canonical JSON plus terminal and Markdown projections). But it doesn't differentiate from siblings like mimry_plan_list or mimry_plan_check, leaving the agent to infer the scope. A 3 reflects vague purpose relative to alternatives.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus mimry_plan_list, mimry_plan_check, or mimry_plan_digest. The description only states what it does, not the context or conditions for selection. This is a significant gap for a tool with several plan-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.