Set the status of an app pipeline stage to done, in progress, or pending. Track progress across AppFactory build stages with a required app directory and stage name.
Mark a stage (done/in_progress/pending).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stage | Yes | ||
| status | No | done | |
| app_dir | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a state mutation but does not disclose whether marking persists to disk, whether it is idempotent, whether it overwrites prior status, or what authorization/context (app_dir) it requires. The only added detail is the status vocabulary.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single front-loaded sentence is tight and wastes nothing. It is arguably over-terse for a three-parameter mutation tool, but as a structural matter it is well-formed and earns its words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description should at minimum explain the stage namespace and app_dir. It omits both, leaving the agent unable to supply valid parameters without guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters. It does define the allowed values for 'status' (done/in_progress/pending), which the schema lacks, but 'stage' (which stage identifiers are valid?) and 'app_dir' (format, required-ness) remain entirely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('a stage'), and it enumerates the valid status values. However, it never clarifies what a 'stage' is in this pipeline, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like pipeline_status, pipeline_next, or pipeline_validate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus the sibling pipeline_* tools, nor any stated prerequisites. It implies marking but never says under what conditions an agent should mark a stage versus check or advance it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.