mcp_m7_scopeTrack task scope and enforce file, line, and time budgets to prevent scope creep; extend, roll back, or visualize changes with reason-based controls.
Manage task scope and prevent scope creep
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| budget | No | ||
| reason | No | Reason for extension or override | |
| sessionId | No | Session ID (optional, uses latest) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.18.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and provides none. It does not say that set-budget, extend, and rollback mutate state, whether changes are reversible, what rollback reverts, or what status/visualize return. A one-line slogan is wildly insufficient for a five-action mutation tool.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness: the single sentence leaves every operational question unanswered. No sentence here earns its place because none carries actionable information.
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 tool with five actions, a nested budget object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits everything an agent needs: action semantics, mutation/rollback behavior, required per-action parameters, and expected results. It is effectively a name-and-slogan entry only.
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 description mentions no parameters. The schema describes only reason and sessionId (50% coverage), leaving the five-value action enum, the nested budget object with files/lines/minutes/breaking fields, and each action's required arguments unexplained anywhere. The description does nothing to compensate for that gap.
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 'Manage task scope and prevent scope creep' essentially restates the title 'Scope' and gives no clue which of the five distinct actions (status, set-budget, extend, rollback, visualize) it performs. An agent cannot tell from this text what an invocation actually does or how it differs from siblings such as task_graph or analyze_task.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, which action to choose, or what alternatives exist. 'Prevent scope creep' hints at intent but gives no trigger conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess against 35 sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.