list_tracksThe 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?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: tracks are label-based, have no independent key, and are readable by any member.
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 reasonably compact and each sentence contributes conceptual context, especially the distinction from subprojects. It is not front-loaded with the action verb, but it avoids repetition and stays focused on the resource model.
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 a simple one-parameter read-only list tool, the description provides enough context: what a track is, how it differs from a subproject, and who can read it. With annotations covering safety and no output schema to explain, no critical agent-facing gap remains.
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 coverage is 100%, and the single projectKey parameter is already documented in the schema with an example. The description reinforces that the project key is the project's own key, but adds no syntax, format, or filtering semantics beyond the schema.
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 clearly identifies the resource as project tracks and explains the concept with concrete examples (play, campaign, rollout). It also distinguishes tracks from subprojects, though it does not open with an explicit verb like 'lists' and does not directly contrast with set_track/remove_track.
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?
Usage is implied by the tool name and by the statement that members may read tracks, but the description does not explicitly say when to call this versus set_track, remove_track, or list_projects. The subproject contrast provides some alternative-oriented context but is not full when/when-not guidance.
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.