plan_addAdds a row to an AI-proposed document filing plan, recording the source, target path or TRASH, and reason for each move.
Add one plan row: source, target path (or TRASH) and reason.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| target | Yes | ||
| plan_name | No | current |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "additionalProperties": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "plan_addOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is set. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral detail not in the schema: the target may be the literal TRASH. It says nothing about validation, whether the row is persisted immediately, or what happens on a nonexistent plan.
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 parameter list is easy to scan. It is arguably too terse for a 4-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, but nothing it includes 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?
For a mutation tool with no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and a clustered sibling set of plan_* tools, the description omits the plan_name parameter, the return value, and any lifecycle context (e.g., that rows are later reviewed and applied). An agent could call it, but only by guessing at plan_name and path semantics.
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%, so the description carries the full burden. It gives meaning to source, target and reason (including the TRASH sentinel), but never mentions the plan_name parameter at all despite its "current" default, and gives no path format, relative-vs-absolute, or reason conventions.
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?
Uses a specific verb ("Add") with the resource ("one plan row") and lists the three values a row carries, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like plan_show or plan_check, but the add-a-row scope is still clear.
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 add a row versus using another plan tool, no prerequisite that a plan must exist first, and no mention of the plan_show/plan_check/plan_apply workflow that surrounds it. The only implied usage is "one row at a time", which the agent has to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.