Skip to main content
Glama
zenskar

Zenskar MCP Server

Official
by zenskar

createPlan

createPlan

Create a reusable contract template with phased pricing. Define name, schedule, and phases with per-phase currency and pricing.

Instructions

Create a new plan — a reusable contract template with phased pricing. Hits POST /plans (same Plan table the Zenskar app's PlansV2 page reads). The request body shape is NESTED, not flat: top-level fields are name, status, schedule, optional description, optional phases[]. Currency is set per-pricing inside phase.pricings[].pricing.pricing_data.currency, NOT at the top level. A plan with no phases is unusable in the UI — always include at least one phase. Plan starts as 'draft'; the user must publish it to make it active.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName of the plan (required).
statusYesPlan status (required). Valid values: 'draft', 'active', 'archived'. New plans almost always start as 'draft' — the user publishes via the UI to activate.
scheduleYesPlan-level schedule (required). Object: {duration: ISO-8601 e.g. 'P1Y'|'P1M', start_offset?: ISO-8601 e.g. 'P0D', trigger_type?: 'time_based'}. Example: {"duration":"P1Y","start_offset":"P0D"}.
descriptionNoOptional plan description.
phasesYesArray of plan phases (REQUIRED — must be non-empty). Each phase: {name: string (required), schedule: {duration, start_offset?, trigger_type?} (required), order: int (required, 0-indexed), description?: string, features?: CreateProductPricingRequestSchema (one-off phase-level pricing/features), pricings?: [{schedule, pricing_id?, product_id?, pricing?: CreateProductPricingRequestSchema, product?: CreateProductRequestSchema}] (per-product pricings)}. Each phase must have features OR a non-empty pricings array. Minimal example: [{"name":"Phase 1","schedule":{"duration":"P1Y"},"order":0,"features":{"pricing_data":{"pricing_type":"features","currency":"USD"}}}].
__userContextNoInternal user context for multi-tenant authentication and approval workflow
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool hits POST /plans, creates a persistent record, and that plans start as 'draft'. It also notes the nested structure constraint. This covers key traits for a creation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single paragraph, front-loaded with the main purpose, then details. It is somewhat lengthy due to nested complexity, but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but it's well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the high complexity (nested objects, 6 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the endpoint, nested structure, phase requirements, status, and currency placement. It lacks explanation of return values, but that is partially mitigated by the schema coverage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the description adds significant clarity: it explains the nested structure, that currency is not top-level, the requirement for at least one phase, and provides an example for schedule. This goes well beyond the schema's descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Create a new plan — a reusable contract template with phased pricing', specifying the verb (create) and resource (plan). It also mentions the API endpoint and the UI page, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides usage guidance: the nested request body shape, currency location inside phases, the requirement to always include at least one phase, and that the plan starts as 'draft' and must be published. It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools but offers enough context for correct invocation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/zenskar/mcp-zenskar'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server