Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aichivist

aichivist

by luftphilipp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Plan show

plan_show
Read-only

Displays rows of a filing plan so users can review the proposed document organization before approval.

Instructions

Rows of a filing plan.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
plan_nameNocurrent

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.1
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "additionalProperties": true,
-      "title": "Result",
-      "type": "object"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "title": "plan_showOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only that the result is 'rows' of a plan, which hints at a read output but says nothing about format, pagination, or what happens when the plan doesn't exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short, but that brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness: a single fragment that is not front-loaded with a verb or scope. Nothing would be lost by replacing it with a sentence that actually informs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description should still explain what is returned and how plan_name selects it. That information is absent, leaving the definition incomplete in every dimension except the annotation-declared safety profile.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the sole parameter plan_name (default 'current') is undocumented anywhere. The description does not clarify what a plan name is, what 'current' means, or whether omitting it is safe.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Rows of a filing plan' restates the tool name rather than stating an action; it never says the tool shows/lists anything, and 'rows' is unexplained. It gives an agent almost nothing to distinguish it from siblings like plan_check, plan_review, or plan_apply.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

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 versus the many plan_* siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must guess entirely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools