Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-adr

mcp-adr

by mauriziomocci
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

adr_update_status

Update the status of an existing Architecture Decision Record by specifying its number, new status, and optional reason or project path.

Instructions

Change the status of an existing ADR.

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": {
      "number": "<number>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "adr_update_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
numberYes
statusYes
reasonNo
project_pathNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action (change status) but does not disclose behavioral traits like permissions, side effects, or what the output schema contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is under-specified for a tool with four parameters. It does not earn its place because it provides no useful information beyond the name.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the complexity (4 parameters, no schema descriptions, output schema present but undescribed), the description is entirely inadequate. It does not cover parameter meanings, return behavior, or usage context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not add any meaning to the parameters. It fails to explain what values status accepts, what number refers to, or the purpose of reason and project_path.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Change the status of an existing ADR.' is a tautology that simply restates the tool name adr_update_status without adding specificity or distinguishing it from siblings like adr_deprecate or adr_supersede.

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 vs. alternatives such as adr_deprecate, adr_supersede, or adr_update. The description does not mention use cases or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools