Create a Microsoft 365 Planner plan for a group and optionally add initial buckets like To do, In progress, and Done to start project tracking.
Create a Planner plan (project) in a Microsoft 365 group, optionally with initial buckets (e.g. ['To do', 'In progress', 'Done']).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| buckets | No | ||
| group_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds real context the annotations don't: buckets can be seeded at creation time, implying a multi-object write. It omits whether bucket creation is atomic with plan creation, what happens on partial failure, and what auth is required.
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?
A single sentence with the resource and container front-loaded, then the optional bucket seeding with a concrete example. No filler, no redundancy with the schema.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should say what comes back — critically, whether the created plan's ID is returned, which the agent needs to chain into planner_create_bucket or planner_create_task. Auth/permission requirements and partial-failure behavior are also unaddressed for a write tool with an openWorld hint.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does partially: it explains what 'buckets' means and gives a concrete example array, and it implies group_id is a Microsoft 365 group identifier. However it does not state that group_id is a GUID or that title is required, leaving two of three parameters under-specified.
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 gives a specific verb ('Create') and a precisely named resource ('Planner plan (project)'), plus the container it lives in ('Microsoft 365 group'). The parenthetical 'project' disambiguates the Microsoft term. It stops short of naming a sibling, but the resource distinction from planner_create_bucket / planner_create_task is obvious from the noun alone.
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 never says when to use this versus planner_list_plans or planner_create_bucket, nor any prerequisite such as needing an existing group or the right permissions. The only implicit guidance is that a group must already exist, inferred from 'in a Microsoft 365 group'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.