plan_checkSimulate a filing plan to detect missing folders, closed collections, clashes, and program data before applying changes; no files are modified.
Simulate the plan (missing folders, closed collections, clashes, program data). Changes nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan_name | No | current | |
| create_folders | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "object"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "plan_checkOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming what the simulation checks (missing folders, closed collections, clashes, program data) and reinforcing that it changes nothing. It does not cover return format, cost, or auth needs, but with annotations present the bar is lower.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core purpose and the non-mutating behavior are stated immediately, and the parenthetical check list is compact.
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?
The description explains the tool's purpose and check categories, but with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema it leaves important invocation details unexplained. In particular, create_folders is completely undocumented, and there is no guidance on how plan_name affects the simulation.
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?
There are two parameters, plan_name and create_folders, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention either parameter or explain what plan_name selects or what create_folders changes in the simulation. It therefore does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter 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 description states a specific verb and resource: simulate the plan. It also enumerates the check categories (missing folders, closed collections, clashes, program data), which makes the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as plan_apply or plan_show, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
The phrase 'Simulate the plan' and 'Changes nothing' imply a dry-run use case, likely before applying a plan. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus plan_apply, plan_show, plan_review, program_check, or other sibling tools. Usage is implied rather than clearly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.