Get a concise status report for a mindmap plan: completion percentage, active tasks, blocked items, HLD concept count, and touched files with changes.
Get a concise status report of the mindmap plan: completion percentage, active tasks, blocked items, HLD concept count, and all touched files with their changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mindmapId | Yes | Mindmap ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned content in useful detail and the word 'Get' signals a read-only operation, but it says nothing about permissions, cost, or whether the read has any side effects. Adequate but not rich for 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?
One tightly written sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a compact enumeration of report contents. No filler, no redundancy, and every clause contributes information the agent needs.
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 no output schema, the description must describe return values, and it does so by listing the report's components. It stops short of saying how those are formatted or structured (e.g., nested vs. flat, units of completion percentage), a small remaining gap for a one-parameter read tool.
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 a single required parameter (mindmapId) at 100% schema description coverage with a documented pattern, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no further meaning about the ID's format or scope beyond calling it a 'mindmap plan', which matches the baseline of 3.
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 pairs a specific verb ('Get a concise status report') with a precise resource ('the mindmap plan') and enumerates exactly what is reported: completion percentage, active tasks, blocked items, HLD concept count, and touched files. It is clearly distinguishable in practice from siblings like get_mindmap or render_mindmap, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
The intent ('status report') implies a progress-check use case, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite context, and none of the thirteen siblings are referenced. The agent must infer that this is the summary view versus get_mindmap's full detail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.