Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Waypoint

Waypoint

by STiFLeR7
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

log_watch

DestructiveIdempotent

Adds one log entry to a tracked project's ship's log for work done in the session, optionally updating the Done and Next lines. Idempotent: repeating the same entry changes nothing.

Instructions

Log a watch (add one log entry) to a tracked project's ship's log (Log section), for work actually done in this session, with your own tool id. Pass done/next if the work changed them: the Done and Next lines in Now and its Updated date are set in the same write. It never changes Status or Attention and never creates files. Calling it again with the same date, tool and text does nothing (Done and Next included).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoOptional local date (YYYY-MM-DD), within one day of today. Defaults to today.
doneNoOptional. The new Done line for Now (one line), if this work changed it.
nextNoOptional. The new Next line for Now (one line), if this work changed it.
toolYesYour tool id, e.g. claude-code for Claude Code, codex for Codex.
projectYesExact project name, as listed by take_fix.
summaryYes1–3 short lines on what was done. Stored as a quoted block.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / done
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. The new Done line for Now (one line), if this work changed it.",
+  "maxLength": 300,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / next
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. The new Next line for Now (one line), if this work changed it.",
+  "maxLength": 300,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to carry the full safety burden. It adds useful behavior beyond annotations: it never changes Status or Attention, never creates files, sets Done/Next and Updated date in the same write, and repeated calls with the same date/tool/text do nothing. It stops short of explicitly saying that existing Done/Next values are overwritten, which would fully explain the destructive mutation.

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 four sentences, front-loads the core action, and each sentence carries distinct information: purpose, conditional done/next behavior, non-effects, and idempotency. There is no filler.

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?

For a six-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, non-effects, and idempotency well. It could be more complete by stating the return/confirmation behavior and by explicitly noting that existing Done/Next lines are replaced when new values are supplied.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that done/next should be passed only when the work changed them and that their lines plus Updated date are written together, and by reinforcing that tool should be the caller's own id.

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 states a specific verb and resource: add one log entry to a tracked project's ship's log (Log section), scoped to work actually done in this session and identified by the caller's tool id. This is sufficiently precise that an agent can distinguish it from status/report-oriented siblings like eod_report or status without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear usage context: use it for work actually done in this session, pass done/next only if the work changed them, and use the exact project name from take_fix. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as eod_report or status, so it falls short of full when/when-not routing guidance.

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