Skip to main content
Glama

get_project_status

Check a Trace MCP project's configuration, cache state, and validation results to monitor schema consistency between data producers and consumers.

Instructions

Get the status of a trace project including config, cache state, and last validation result.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectDirYesRoot directory with .trace-mcp config

Implementation Reference

  • Main execution logic for the get_project_status tool. Parses input, loads the TraceProject, checks if it exists, retrieves configuration and watcher status, and returns a detailed JSON status report.
    case 'get_project_status': {
      const input = GetProjectStatusInput.parse(args);
      log(`Getting project status for: ${input.projectDir}`);
      
      const project = loadProject(input.projectDir);
      
      if (!project.exists()) {
        return {
          content: [{
            type: 'text',
            text: JSON.stringify({
              success: false,
              exists: false,
              error: `No trace project found at ${input.projectDir}`,
            }, null, 2),
          }],
        };
      }
      
      const config = project.config;
      const activeWatchers = listActiveWatchers();
      const isWatching = activeWatchers.includes(project.rootDir);
      
      let watcherStatus = null;
      if (isWatching) {
        const watcher = getWatcher(project);
        watcherStatus = watcher.getStatus();
      }
      
      return {
        content: [{
          type: 'text',
          text: JSON.stringify({
            success: true,
            exists: true,
            projectDir: project.rootDir,
            traceDir: project.traceDir,
            config,
            isWatching,
            watcherStatus,
            paths: {
              producer: project.producerPath,
              consumer: project.consumerPath,
            },
          }, null, 2),
        }],
      };
    }
  • Zod schema for validating the input to the get_project_status tool, requiring a projectDir string.
    const GetProjectStatusInput = z.object({
      projectDir: z.string().describe('Root directory with .trace-mcp config'),
    });
  • src/index.ts:265-274 (registration)
    Registration of the get_project_status tool in the ListTools response, defining its name, description, and input schema.
      name: 'get_project_status',
      description: 'Get the status of a trace project including config, cache state, and last validation result.',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          projectDir: { type: 'string', description: 'Root directory with .trace-mcp config' },
        },
        required: ['projectDir'],
      },
    },
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what information is retrieved but doesn't describe the return format, potential errors (e.g., invalid projectDir), or operational constraints (e.g., whether it reads from disk or memory). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the status of a trace project') and adds specific details ('including config, cache state, and last validation result') without waste. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, read operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and output components but misses behavioral details and usage context. Without an output schema, it should ideally hint at the return structure, but the explicit listing of included information partially compensates.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'projectDir' documented as 'Root directory with .trace-mcp config'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool operates on a trace project. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given high schema coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'status of a trace project', specifying what information is included: config, cache state, and last validation result. It distinguishes this from siblings like 'init_project' or 'trace_file' by focusing on status retrieval rather than creation or tracing operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'compare' might also involve project status).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., an initialized project), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'trace_usage' or 'watch' that might also provide status-related information. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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/Mnehmos/mnehmos.trace.mcp'

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