tracker-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Add an application

add_application

Add a new job application to your tracker with a not-applied status, while preventing duplicate company+role or link entries and requiring confirmation before any write.

Instructions

Add a new row with the not-applied status. Refuses a duplicate (same company+role or link).

The tool writes only with the user's yes. The client may ask in its own confirmation dialog. Otherwise call with dry_run=true, show the preview to the user, and after they agree in a new message repeat the same call with confirm=. The write is refused if the tracker changed since expected_version. A backup is taken first, and undo_last_write reverts the write.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`link`	No	Application URL
`role`	Yes	Job title, as in the posting
`extra`	No	Other columns: a field name from describe_tracker or an exact header text -> value
`notes`	No	Text for the notes column
`company`	Yes	Company name
`confirm`	No	Token from the dry run the user approved. Not needed when the client shows the server's confirmation dialog
`dry_run`	No	Only show what would change, plus the confirm token; write nothing
`allow_duplicate`	No	Add it even though the same company+role or link is already in the tracker (a second application on purpose)
`expected_version`	No	`version` from your last read; the write is refused if the file changed since

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.5.2Oct 25, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / allow_duplicate / description
```
Added value: +"Add it even though the same company+role or link is already in the tracker (a second application on purpose)"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / company / description
```
Added value: +"Company name"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / notes / description
```
Added value: +"Text for the notes column"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / role / description
```
Added value: +"Job title, as in the posting"
```
First observedv0.5.1Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: a backup is taken first, undo_last_write can revert it, the write is refused on a version mismatch, and duplicates are rejected on company+role or link. The annotations only mark it non-read-only and non-destructive; the description supplies the actual safety and failure semantics an agent needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and duplicate rule are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the confirmation protocol follows in a compact paragraph. Slightly dense, but each sentence carries non-obvious operational information.

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?

With an output schema present, annotations covering the safety profile, and 100% schema coverage, the description fills the remaining gaps: consent flow, token mechanics, optimistic-concurrency refusal, backup/undo. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents company, role, link, notes, extra, confirm, dry_run, allow_duplicate and expected_version. The description only reinforces confirm and expected_version, which the schema already explains; it adds no new meaning for the remaining parameters. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a new row') and pins down the resulting state ('not-applied status') plus the duplicate-refusal rule, which lets an agent distinguish it from edit_application or set_status. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than declared.

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?

Gives a concrete usage protocol: write only after user consent, either via the client's own confirmation dialog or via dry_run=true followed by a repeat call with confirm=<token> in a new user message. What is missing is guidance on the create-vs-edit boundary (when to prefer edit_application or allow_duplicate for an intentional second application).

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