vibecheck

project_status

Read-only

Retrieve current project status, including a compact work summary or full records and task map.

Instructions

Read compact current work; full includes all current records and the task map.

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": {
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "project_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, matching the 'Read' verb. The description adds a small behavioral detail: full mode includes all current records and the task map. However, it does not disclose behaviors like default limits, pagination, or the meaning of 'since' or 'known_plan_revision'.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no filler and is reasonably front-loaded. However, the phrasing 'compact current work' is slightly awkward and could be clearer, so it loses a point for structural clarity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the nested parameter object, abundant optional parameters, and absence of an output schema, the description is far too terse. It does not explain request construction, output shape, or the semantics of key parameters like since and known_plan_revision, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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. It adds some meaning for the 'full' concept and hints at 'task map' (likely include_map), but it does not explain the outer 'request' object or parameters like limit, since, task_ids, and known_plan_revision. This is insufficient for the schema's nested structure.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names a resource ('current work'), and distinguishes compact vs full outputs. It is clear about the tool's fundamental purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like plan_read or work_history.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only contrasts compact and full modes within the tool itself, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context relative to plan_read, work_history, or project_join.

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

Deploy Server