Mark the active plan step as complete, automatically update progress, and set the next step as current to keep plans moving.
Advance the active step of a Plan to complete, automatically updating progress and pointing nowDoing to the next step.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| planId | No | ||
| status | No | complete | |
| stepId | No | ||
| summary | No | ||
| nextStepId | No | ||
| projectRoot | No | ||
| taskContextId | No | ||
| includeStructured | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Input schema / properties / taskContextIdAdded value: +{
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the key side effects—automatic progress update and nowDoing pointer change—beyond a bare 'advance step' statement. However, it does not address status options, reversibility, or what happens when the step is already complete.
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 sentence with no filler, and the primary action and automatic side effects are front-loaded. It earns its place and is easy to parse.
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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this short description is not enough for correct invocation. It omits parameter roles, allowed status behavior, and return value expectations.
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 compensate. It maps conceptually to stepId and nextStepId and hints at progress/status, but leaves planId, summary, projectRoot, taskContextId, includeStructured, and the status enum meanings unexplained. An agent cannot reliably populate 8 optional parameters from this text.
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 uses a specific verb ('Advance') and resource ('active step of a Plan') and names concrete outcomes: marking complete, updating progress, and moving nowDoing to the next step. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling plan tools such as plan_context and timeline_sync.
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 description implies the use case: when a step in a Plan has been accomplished and the active pointer should move on. It gives no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives, so an agent must infer that this is the right action versus a broader plan mutation tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.