Inspect the last GIS plan and execution run to review inputs, outputs, assumptions, steps, and results. Use it to diagnose outcomes and verify what a prior run did.
Show details of the last plan and/or execution run.
Returns the plan (inputs, outputs, assumptions, steps) and execution results if gis.run was used.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contents (inputs, outputs, assumptions, steps, and execution results under a condition), which is helpful. However, it does not clarify whether 'last' refers to the most recent plan or execution run, what happens if no prior run exists, or whether the operation is strictly read-only.
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 two short sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and adds conditional return detail without any wasted words.
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 the zero-parameter interface, output schema, and low complexity, the description is largely complete for invoking the tool. It explains the returned plan and conditional execution results. Minor gaps include the lack of error/no-prior-run behavior and the ambiguity of 'last' between plan and run.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline score for zero params is 4, and the description appropriately avoids unnecessary parameter discussion.
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: showing details of the last plan and/or execution run. It clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like gis.plan and gis.run by focusing on the most recent plan/execution. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from gis.diagnose.
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 description implies when to use it (to inspect the last plan/execution) and mentions that execution results appear only if gis.run was used. It does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like gis.diagnose or gis.plan, nor does it state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.