Fetch a saved mix plan by ID to review the intended production steps and revision notes.
Read one process-local reviewable plan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| status | No | draft | |
| plan_id | Yes | ||
| warnings | No | ||
| rationale | No | ||
| created_at | Yes | ||
| operations | Yes | ||
| schema_version | No | 1.0 | |
| session_fingerprint | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v10.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'process-local' and 'reviewable' context, which hints at ephemerality and review purpose but does not disclose limitations like missing-plan behavior.
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 is appropriately short for a simple read operation, though slightly under-specified in content.
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?
With one simple required parameterhol, an output schema present, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, minimal description is acceptable. However, the lack of usage guidance and the vague 'process-local' term leave gaps that an agent might need filled.
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%, and the description does not compensate: 'plan_id' is left entirely to the schema's title and pattern. The word 'one ... plan' weakly implies selection by ID, but no additional meaning is added.
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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one process-local reviewable plan'), which is clear enough to distinguish the core action. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like mix_create_plan or processing_plan, but 'process-local reviewable plan' adds meaningful scope.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mix_create_plan, mix_apply_plan, or postfader_review_get. The description implies a read operation but never states prerequisites, sequencing, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.