Skip to main content
Glama
olgasafonova

productplan-mcp-server

by olgasafonova
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

get_bar

Read-only

Fetches details for a specific bar ID: description, links, custom fields, dates, percent done, and lane info. Use when answering questions about feature status.

Instructions

Get bar details including description, links, custom fields.

USE WHEN: "Tell me about this feature", "Bar details" Returns bar name, dates, description, links, custom fields, percent_done, and lane info. FAILS WHEN: bar_id not found (get valid IDs from get_roadmap_bars).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bar_idYesBar ID from get_roadmap_bars

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe ProductPlan payload (object or array) returned by the API, passed through verbatim
summaryYesHuman-readable summary of the result (e.g. "Found 3 roadmaps")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv6.0.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "The ProductPlan payload (object or array) returned by the API, passed through verbatim",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "summary": {
+      "description": "Human-readable summary of the result (e.g. \"Found 3 roadmaps\")",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "summary",
+    "data"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv5.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the call read-only; the description adds the failure mode for a missing bar_id and directs the agent to fetch valid IDs from get_roadmap_bars. It also explicitly lists the returned data, giving useful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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 compact and well-structured with USE WHEN and FAILS WHEN sections. It loses a point because 'including description, links, custom fields' is largely redundant with the fuller return-field list that follows.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a single-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the trigger phrases, the input source, the failure mode, and the returned fields. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents bar_id as 'Bar ID from get_roadmap_bars'. The description repeats this same source hint, reinforcing it but adding no new format, validation, or behavioral detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly identifies a specific verb and resource ('Get bar details') and enumerates the returned fields (name, dates, links, custom fields, percent_done, lane info), making the tool's purpose obvious. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with nearby getter siblings like get_bar_children or get_roadmap_bars, so it lacks 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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The 'USE WHEN' section gives concrete user intents and phrases that should route an agent here, and 'FAILS WHEN' identifies the main error condition. It also points to get_roadmap_bars as the source of valid IDs, but it does not state when a sibling getter should be preferred.

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