Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Claude Project History MCP Server

Claude Project History MCP Server

by MatthewDegtyar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get Workflow Summary

cph_workflow_summary
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a workflow status summary with task counts, open blockers, decisions, and estimation accuracy. Use this when a user requests project status.

Instructions

Get a full status summary of a workflow.

Returns task counts by status, open blocker count, decision count, and estimation accuracy ratio.

Use this when a user explicitly asks for project status. Don't call proactively.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workflow_id": "<workflow_id>"
    },
    "name": "cph_workflow_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workflow_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safe, read-only nature is established. The description adds clarity on what the tool returns (specific counts and ratios), supplementing the annotations.

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?

Three precise sentences: purpose, return data, usage guidance. No unnecessary words or redundant information. Each sentence adds value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return details, and proper usage context thoroughly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage and a single parameter 'workflow_id' with no explanation beyond its type and UUID format. The description does not elaborate on how to obtain or use this ID, leaving the agent with no additional context.

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 explicitly states the action ('Get a full status summary') and the resource ('workflow'), with specific return values (task counts, blocker count, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like cph_workflow_list and cph_workflow_reconstruct.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides direct guidance: 'Use this when a user explicitly asks for project status. Don't call proactively.' This tells the agent both when and when not to use it, which is exemplary.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools