Bamboo MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_plan

Retrieve detailed information about a specific build plan using its plan key to inspect configurations, branches, and status.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific build plan.

Args: plan_key: The plan key (e.g., 'PROJ-PLAN')

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": {
      "plan_key": "<plan_key>"
    },
    "name": "get_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`plan_key`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'get detailed information' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what fields are returned, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral detail.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences: first states purpose, second explains the parameter. No extraneous text, front-loaded, every sentence is valuable.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With a simple one-parameter tool and an existing output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and parameter but lacks context like prerequisites or typical use cases. Acceptable but not thorough.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds 'plan_key: The plan key (e.g., 'PROJ-PLAN')', providing a format example beyond the schema's bare type and title. This compensates well for the missing schema description.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get detailed information about a specific build plan' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_plans (list) and enable_plan (enable), but does not explicitly differentiate from get_plan_branches or get_plan_variables.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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