Trace MCP

init_project

Sets up a trace project with .trace-mcp config directory, enabling watch mode and caching for schema mismatch detection between data producers and consumers.

Instructions

Initialize a trace project with .trace-mcp config directory. Creates project structure for watch mode and caching.

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": {
      "projectDir": "<projectDir>",
      "producerPath": "<producerPath>",
      "consumerPath": "<consumerPath>"
    },
    "name": "init_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`projectDir`	Yes	Root directory for the trace project
`producerPath`	Yes	Relative path to producer/server code
`consumerPath`	Yes	Relative path to consumer/client code
`producerLanguage`	No	Producer language (default: typescript)
`consumerLanguage`	No	Consumer language (default: typescript)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedDec 28, 2025

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. Description says it creates project structure, but doesn't disclose idempotency, overwrite behavior, or side effects. Adequate but could be more transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Action verb front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a setup tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, description is too minimal. Does not explain return value, what files are created, or what happens if project already exists. Incomplete for effective agent usage.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%; each parameter is documented in schema. Description adds no additional parameter context beyond schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states verb (initialize) and resource (trace project), and specifies what it creates (.trace-mcp config directory, project structure for watch mode and caching). Distinguishes from siblings like scaffold_consumer which focus on code scaffolding.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implies use when starting a trace project, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like scaffold_consumer or get_project_status. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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

Deploy Server