Skip to main content
Glama
olgasafonova

productplan-mcp-server

by olgasafonova
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

get_opportunity

Read-only

Retrieve opportunity details and linked ideas using an ID from list_opportunities.

Instructions

Get opportunity details with linked ideas.

USE WHEN: "Tell me about this opportunity" FAILS WHEN: opportunity_id not found (get valid IDs from list_opportunities).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
opportunity_idYesOpportunity ID from list_opportunities

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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Get' aligns with that. The description adds the failure mode (opportunity_id not found) and suggests sourcing valid IDs, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it doesn't describe other behavioral traits like response format or any side effects.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a USE WHEN and FAILS WHEN clause. Every element serves a purpose, and the main purpose is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple single-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the essential usage context and failure condition. It lacks details on what 'linked ideas' means or what the response contains, but the output schema presumably covers that. It is adequately complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already describes opportunity_id as 'Opportunity ID from list_opportunities'. The description doesn't add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'opportunity details', and adds 'with linked ideas' which distinguishes it from generic getters. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_idea or get_launch, so it stops short of a 5.

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 description provides explicit USE WHEN and FAILS WHEN clauses, including guidance to get valid IDs from list_opportunities. This gives clear context on when to invoke the tool, though it doesn't mention alternative tools for comparison.

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