genealogy-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

project_log

Write a line in the project's research log, so nobody searches the same place twice. Log negative results. Use source_id/lead_id to track the source checklist; unavailable is not no hits.

Instructions

Write a line in the project's research log, so nobody searches the same place twice. Log negative results. Use source_id/lead_id to track the source checklist; unavailable is not no hits.

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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "action": "<action>",
      "result": "<result>"
    },
    "name": "project_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scope`	No
`action`	Yes	What was searched and where: 'FamilySearch index, Kolodin, Tula 1880–1890'
`result`	Yes	What came out — 'nothing found' is a result too
`lead_id`	No
`outcome`	No		checked
`project`	Yes	Project name, the path of a gene-archive site folder, or the path of a .ged file
`source_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.7.0Oct 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / lead_id

Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Lead Id",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / outcome

Added value: +{
+  "default": "checked",
+  "enum": [
+    "checked",
+    "unavailable",
+    "not_relevant"
+  ],
+  "title": "Outcome",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / source_id

Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Source Id",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv0.5.1Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive write that is not idempotent. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it is an append-style coordination log, negative results must be recorded, and the outcome semantics distinguish 'unavailable' from 'no hits.' It doesn't say what happens on duplicate entries, which is the main remaining gap for a non-idempotent write.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and rationale, then the logging rule, then the parameter hint. No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the workflow rationale and outcome semantics; only the unexplained 'scope' parameter and duplicate-write behavior keep it from being fully complete for a 7-parameter mutation tool.

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 coverage is only 43%, so the description carries weight, and it does clarify usage of source_id/lead_id (checklist tracking) and outcome ('unavailable is not no hits' maps to the enum). However, the 'scope' parameter is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so compensation is incomplete.

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: 'Write a line in the project's research log.' The coordination rationale ('so nobody searches the same place twice') makes the intent unambiguous and distinguishes it from analysis/gathering siblings like plan_research or project_evidence, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 clear conditions for use: log after a search, including negative results, and the caveat that 'unavailable is not no hits' tells the agent how to classify a failed lookup. No alternative tool is explicitly excluded or contrasted, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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