List Microsoft Planner plans you can access, including those shared with you and plans in your Microsoft 365 groups, to review team tasks and assignments.
List Planner plans I can see: shared with me, plus plans in my M365 groups.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries more burden. It usefully discloses the scope of results (shared plans plus M365 group plans), which is behavioral context beyond the schema. But it does not mention pagination, permission requirements, or that the operation is read-only beyond the implied 'List' verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the resource and scope immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and an output schema, the description is nearly complete for a simple list tool. It defines what is listed and the visibility boundary, though it could optionally clarify that results are read-only and may be paginated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument listing operation, and there is no parameter semantics to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Planner plans') and defines the visibility scope as plans shared with the user plus plans in their M365 groups. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as planner_get_plan or planner_list_tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery tool for plans the user can access. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like planner_get_plan or planner_my_tasks, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.