Skip to main content
Glama
olgasafonova

productplan-mcp-server

by olgasafonova
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

manage_opportunity

Destructive

Create or update ProductPlan opportunities with a problem statement or opportunity ID. Use workflow status to archive, as deletion is not available.

Instructions

Create or update an opportunity. Note: delete not available via API.

USE WHEN: "Create opportunity", "Update problem" Actions: create (problem_statement), update (opportunity_id) Returns the created/updated opportunity object. FAILS WHEN: create without problem_statement, update without opportunity_id (get IDs from list_opportunities). Note: delete is not available via the ProductPlan API; archive opportunities by updating workflow_status instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYescreate or update
descriptionNoDescription
opportunity_idNoOpportunity ID (for update)
workflow_statusNoOpportunity workflow status
problem_statementNoProblem statement (title)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv5.1.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / workflow_status / description
      Previous value: -"draft, in_discovery, validated, invalidated, completed"New value: +"Opportunity workflow status"
    • addedInput schema / properties / workflow_status / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "draft",
+  "in_discovery",
+  "validated",
+  "invalidated",
+  "completed"
+]
  2. First observedv5.0.0

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by clarifying that delete is not available via API and suggesting archiving via workflow_status update. This adds behavioral nuance beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 well-organized with sections (USE WHEN, Actions, Returns, FAILS WHEN) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, and the format is scannable for agents.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description mentions it returns the opportunity object. It covers usage conditions, failure modes, required parameter sources, and the delete limitation. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical usage semantics: it maps action to required parameters (create requires problem_statement, update requires opportunity_id) and specifies failure conditions. This is beyond schema descriptions and directly helps correct invocation.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Create or update an opportunity' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly notes that delete is not available, distinguishing it from read-only get_opportunity and other manage_ tools. It also mentions the resource context without ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It provides explicit 'USE WHEN' conditions ('Create opportunity', 'Update problem') and 'FAILS WHEN' clauses, and instructs to get IDs from list_opportunities. It also explains that archiving should be done via updating workflow_status, covering the alternative for deletion.

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