vibecheck

plan_publish

Idempotent

Publish the coordinator's full task plan, verifying the expected revision to keep project state accurate.

Instructions

Publish the coordinator's complete task plan using its expected revision.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "plan_publish"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds little beyond 'using its expected revision,' which hints at optimistic concurrency but does not explain what happens on a revision mismatch, whether the whole plan is replaced, or what other side effects publishing may have.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is one short sentence with no filler and front-loads the core action. While it is terse, every word contributes meaning; it simply leaves important behavioral detail unstated.

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 nested, concurrency-sensitive publish operation with no output schema, this description is under-specified. An agent cannot determine the effect of calling it with an outdated expected_revision, whether tasks fully replace existing ones, or how the identifiers connect to a previously read plan.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only maps to two of the nested fields: 'complete task plan' hints at tasks, and 'expected revision' maps directly to expected_revision. The outer request object and fields like project_id, request_id, session_id, status, depends_on, and supersedes remain unexplained.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific action ('publish') and a clear resource ('the coordinator's complete task plan'). It also highlights the concurrency key, 'using its expected revision,' which helps distinguish this from sibling plan tools. It could be stronger by explicitly contrasting with plan_edit or plan_read, but the purpose is clear.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no guidance on when to use plan_publish versus plan_edit, plan_ack, or plan_read. It does not state prerequisites, such as first reading the current plan to obtain expected_revision, nor does it explain the failure behavior if the revision does not match.

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

Deploy Server