lxDIG MCP

progress_query

Query tasks or features by status to retrieve current status, assignee, and due date. Filter results by all, active, blocked, or completed.

Instructions

List tasks or features by status. Pass a query string (e.g. 'all tasks' or 'feature auth') and optionally filter by status (all | active | blocked | completed). Returns matching task or feature nodes with their current status, assignee, and due date.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "progress_query"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Progress query
`status`	No	Filter by status
`profile`	No	Response profile	compact

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses that the tool returns task/feature nodes with status, assignee, and due date, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, and there are no annotations to supplement. For a query tool, this is adequate but not outstanding.

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 very concise, comprising two sentences that front-load the purpose and quickly cover usage and output. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers input and output sufficiently for a simple query tool, especially given the lack of output schema. However, it omits details on error handling, empty results, or limits. In context with many sibling tools, more usage differentiation would improve completeness.

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?

The schema descriptions cover all parameters, but the tool description adds value by providing example query strings and clarifying the status enum values. The profile parameter is not mentioned, but the examples for query and status are helpful. Given high schema coverage, the description goes beyond baseline.

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists tasks or features by status. It specifies the verb 'list', the resource 'tasks or features', and the filtering by status. It is specific and not a tautology.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like feature_status or blocking_issues. The description does not mention scenarios where this tool is preferred or when to avoid it.

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