tracker-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Set several statuses

set_statuses

Destructive

Update the status of multiple job applications in one confirmed, undoable write. Preview every row, approve once, and revert the whole batch with a single undo if needed.

Instructions

Change the status of several applications in one write, for example after a day of replies. Each item takes the arguments of set_status and is applied as set_status applies it. The user sees one preview of every row and answers once. A row may appear only once. The write is all or nothing: if one row is refused, nothing is written and the error names that row. It makes one backup, so one undo_last_write reverts the whole batch.

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.

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": {
      "items": "<items>"
    },
    "name": "set_statuses"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`items`	Yes	One status change per row
`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
`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.

Addedv0.6.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds substantially: atomic all-or-nothing semantics, the error naming the refused row, expected_version optimistic-concurrency refusal, and a single backup that one undo_last_write reverts for the whole batch. These are operational facts an agent cannot derive from the annotations or schema.

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 batch contract, atomicity, and undo behavior, and the confirmation workflow follows logically. The closing sentences ('The write is refused if the tracker changed since expected_version. A backup is taken first, and undo_last_write reverts the write.') restate facts already given in the first paragraph and could be cut without loss.

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?

An output schema exists and schema coverage is complete, so the description only needs to cover risk and workflow — which it does: atomicity, undo unit, concurrency conflict, and the human-in-the-loop confirmation path. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this safely 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter sequencing that the per-field schema text does not convey: dry_run yields the preview plus the confirm token, and that token is what the repeat call must carry. expected_version's link to a prior read is reinforced but largely restates the schema.

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 specific verb and resource with batch scope: 'Change the status of several applications in one write.' It also anchors itself to the sibling set_status by stating each item takes and is applied as set_status does, so an agent can distinguish the batch tool from the single-row one without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('for example after a day of replies'), a hard constraint ('A row may appear only once'), a reference alternative (set_status semantics per item), and the exact confirmation protocol: dry_run=true, show preview, then repeat the same call with confirm=<token> after the user agrees in a new message. The when-not (needs the user's yes) is stated outright.

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