Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
shipfast-mcp

shipfast-mcp

by QuocTang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

New Decision

new_decision

Records a new project decision in docs/05_decisions using the project template, assigns its decision code, and updates the index.

Instructions

Ghi quyết định mới vào docs/05_decisions/ theo mẫu của dự án, cấp mã và cập nhật mục lục.

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": {
      "project_dir": "<project_dir>",
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "short_name": "<short_name>"
    },
    "name": "new_decision"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYesSP sản phẩm, KT kỹ thuật, QT quy trình
waveNoMã vấn đề nguồn, ví dụ W03-02—
titleYesTên quyết định, tiếng Việt
statusNoHiệu lực chỉ khi PO đã chốtGiả định
contextNoBối cảnh
decisionNoPhát biểu quyết định, ngắn, kiểm được
short_nameYesTên ngắn tiếng Anh cho tên file, ví dụ cookie-session-auth
project_dirYesĐường dẫn tuyệt đối tới gốc repo dự án

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.3

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does real work by disclosing the side effects: a file is created under docs/05_decisions/, a code is allocated, and the table of contents is mutated. It does not say what happens on code collision or whether existing files are overwritten, which is the remaining gap for a write tool.

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?

A single dense sentence with the action, target directory, template constraint, and both side effects front-loaded; nothing is redundant or padded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers the write destination and derived side effects. It could still note prerequisites or failure modes (duplicate short_name, missing template) for a tool that creates files and edits an index.

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% with per-field descriptions and two enums, so the schema already carries parameter meaning, and the baseline of 3 applies. The phrase 'cấp mã' hints that kind and short_name drive code generation, but the description never explains that relationship explicitly.

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 gives a concrete verb and destination: write a new decision into docs/05_decisions/ using the project template, allocate a code, and update the index. That tells an agent exactly what artifact is produced and where it lands. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings such as next_code or check, which could plausibly relate to decision numbering.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, no prerequisites (e.g. that the project must already be scaffolded), and no named alternative. The only implicit trigger is 'you have a new decision to record', which essentially restates the tool name rather than guiding selection.

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