The tracks a project is cut into: a track is a LABEL the project declared meaningful — a play, a campaign, a rollout — and work joins one by carrying that label. A track has no key of its own; its issues keep the project's key, which is what makes it a different thing from a subproject (a separate project, see create_project's parentKey). Any member may read them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectKey | Yes | Project key, e.g. 'TH'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral details itself. It states that 'any member may read them,' indicating read-only access, and explains the track model. However, it does not describe the output format, pagination, or error handling, which is a notable gap for a listing tool. The response structure is left unspecified.
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 well-structured and clearly explains the track concept, front-loading the core purpose. It is somewhat verbose for a simple listing tool, but the extra explanation serves to differentiate tracks from subprojects. The sentences flow logically and no information is wasted.
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?
The description covers the conceptual model and access rules, but omits the response structure and any edge cases such as what happens when a project has no tracks or when the project key is invalid. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left to infer what the tool returns. For a one-parameter tool, this is a significant gap.
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?
The schema already describes the projectKey parameter with an example ('TH'), and the description adds no additional parameter-specific details. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not enhance understanding of the parameter beyond what the schema provides.
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 conveys that the tool returns the tracks associated with a project, and clarifies the track concept as labels. It distinguishes tracks from subprojects, which helps differentiate from related tools. However, it does not use an explicit verb like 'list' and instead describes the concept, making the action slightly indirect.
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 mentions that tracks differ from subprojects and references create_project's parentKey for subproject creation, giving some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_track or remove_track, nor does it provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied but not fully articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
