Skip to main content
Glama
davidorex

Project Handoffs MCP Server

by davidorex

get_latest_next_steps

Retrieve prioritized open next steps for a project to facilitate task management and workflow organization during AI session handoffs.

Instructions

Get open next steps ordered by priority

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYesProject identifier

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function in ProjectManager that loads project data, filters open next steps, and sorts them by priority.
    async getLatestNextSteps(projectId: string): Promise<NextStep[]> {
      const data = await this.loadProjectData(projectId);
      return data.nextSteps
        .filter(step => step.status === 'open')
        .sort((a, b) => {
          const priorityOrder = {
            'core-critical': 0,
            'full-required': 1,
            'enhancement': 2
          };
          return priorityOrder[a.priority] - priorityOrder[b.priority];
        });
    }
  • src/index.ts:383-393 (registration)
    Tool registration in listTools handler, including name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: "get_latest_next_steps",
      description: "Get open next steps ordered by priority",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          projectId: { type: "string", description: "Project identifier" }
        },
        required: ["projectId"]
      }
    },
  • Dispatcher in CallToolRequestSchema handler that invokes the core handler and returns JSON response.
    case "get_latest_next_steps":
      const steps = await projectManager.getLatestNextSteps(args.projectId as string);
      return {
        content: [{
          type: "text",
          text: JSON.stringify(steps, null, 2)
        }]
      };
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying it's read-only, but doesn't confirm this or add context like authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'open' means operationally (e.g., status filtering). It lacks details on return format, pagination, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with behavioral implications.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Get open next steps ordered by priority'. It front-loads the core action and key details (open status, priority ordering), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieval with filtering and ordering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and key constraints (open, priority) but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details. It meets basic needs but has clear gaps that could hinder effective use by an agent.

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%, with the parameter 'projectId' fully documented in the schema as 'Project identifier'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to given the schema's clarity.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('open next steps'), and specifies ordering ('by priority'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_next_step_history' (which retrieves historical data) and 'create_next_step' (which creates rather than retrieves). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'list_templates' or 'start_working_session', which serve different purposes.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid projectId), exclusions (e.g., not for closed next steps), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_next_step_history' for historical data. Usage is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/davidorex/project-handoffs'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server