Lists recent plans and their statuses, helping you check or recall a plan mentioned earlier when a user asks about it.
列出最近的计划及其状态。用户问「刚才那个计划呢」时用。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "duddy_list_plans"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses only that plans and statuses are returned. It says nothing about ordering (recency?), how 'recent' is bounded, whether the call is read-only/paginated, or what a plan record contains, leaving the agent to guess at behavior on a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the usage trigger; no filler. The second sentence is slightly informal but still earns its place as routing guidance.
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?
For a single-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the bar is low but the description still omits what makes the list 'recent', the meaning of limit, and any hint of the returned record shape. It is adequate to select the tool but not to call it with confidence.
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 is one parameter, limit, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must explain it and does not mention it at all. The agent cannot tell from either source what limit counts (plans, days, pages) or its default of 10.
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 states a specific verb and resource (列出最近的计划) plus what is returned (及其状态), so the agent knows this is a listing operation over plans. It does not name or differentiate from siblings such as duddy_plan_status or duddy_precheck_plan, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
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?
It gives one concrete trigger scenario (用户问「刚才那个计划呢」时用), which is better than nothing, but it offers no when-not guidance and never points to alternatives in a sibling set that contains several plan-related tools. An agent must still infer that duddy_plan_status is for a specific known plan.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.