tracker-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Mark as applied

mark_applied

Destructive

Record that an existing tracker row was submitted: sets the applied flag, submit date, channel, status, and first follow-up. Requires user confirmation; use a dry run to preview changes.

Instructions

Record that the user submitted an application that is already a row in the tracker. Add a new one with add_application first. The write sets the applied flag, the submit date, the channel and the applied status, unless the row already has another status. It also sets the first follow-up date by the follow-up rule and adds a line to the follow-up log. An existing follow-up date is kept unless followup_on is given. A row already marked as applied is refused; correct its date with edit_application. The tool warns when the same company got another application within a few weeks. Replies and closing go through set_status.

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
`row`	Yes	Sheet row number of the application (see list/get results)
`note`	No	Appended to the notes column
`channel`	No	How it was sent, e.g. 'Ashby (direct form)'
`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
`applied_on`	No	Submit date; default today
`followup_on`	No	Default: from the follow-up rule (describe_tracker)
`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.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.2Oct 25, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / note / description
```
Added value: +"Appended to the notes column"
```
First observedv0.5.1Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it enumerates the exact fields mutated (applied flag, submit date, channel, status, follow-up date, follow-up log line), the situations that are refused (already applied, tracker changed since expected_version), the duplicate-company warning, and that a backup is taken and undo_last_write reverts. This is what makes a destructiveHint=true write safe to invoke.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and alternatives, then the confirmation workflow, then conflict/backup guarantees. Dense but nearly every sentence carries distinct information; the phrasing is a little long-winded in the multi-clause status sentence but nothing is redundant.

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 and 100% parameter coverage, the description need only cover side effects and workflow, which it does fully: confirmation token flow, version conflict behavior, backup/undo, and cross-tool routing. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: followup_on overrides the follow-up rule while an existing date is otherwise kept, and confirm/dry_run are explained as a paired workflow rather than isolated fields. It does not restate row/applied_on, which the schema already covers well.

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?

States a precise verb+resource: records that an application already present as a row was submitted, and names the sibling (add_application) that handles the not-yet-tracked case. An agent can distinguish this from add_application, edit_application and set_status without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Add a new one with add_application first', 'correct its date with edit_application', 'Replies and closing go through set_status'. It also states the precondition (row must already exist) and the two-step confirmation procedure, so both when to use and when not to use are covered.

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