kazaplan-mcp

by padupuy

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

Kz Get

kz_get

Retrieve the raw JSON of a plan object by its ID to debug object data in the virtual home designer.

Instructions

JSON brut d'un objet du plan (débogage).

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": {
      "object_id": "<object_id>"
    },
    "name": "kz_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`object_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It signals the payload is "brut" (unprocessed) and debug-oriented, but says nothing about read-only semantics, error behavior for an unknown object_id, or whether the raw shape is stable — details an agent needs before relying on it.

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?

Seven words, front-loaded with the return form and closed by the qualifying context. Nothing is padded, though the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Even so, for a tool with an undocumented id parameter, no annotations and eighteen siblings, the description leaves the agent guessing at scope and correct usage.

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?

Only one parameter (object_id) and the schema gives it zero description, so the description should explain what kind of object id is expected. It never mentions the parameter at all; the phrase "objet du plan" only loosely hints at the domain. The single simple parameter keeps this from scoring lower.

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

Purpose3/5

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

"JSON brut d'un objet du plan" states the resource (a plan object) and the return form (raw JSON), and the parenthetical "(débogage)" frames it as a debug escape hatch. But the verb is implicit and "objet du plan" is vague against a large sibling set (kz_room_geometry, kz_summary, kz_board) — an agent cannot tell precisely which aspects of an object this exposes.

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?

The word "(débogage)" implies it is for debugging rather than normal retrieval, which is a faint usage signal. There is no statement of when to prefer it over kz_summary, kz_room_geometry or other siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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