No user-submitted related servers found.
Scored across 64 tools
Most tools are carefully scoped and the descriptions do a lot of disambiguation work, but several pairs have blurry boundaries: parity_set vs parity_scan both write coverage, study_conclude vs study_status both touch the concluded state, and feature_ready vs feature_unblocked both answer what can be worked next. Agents would often need to read the full descriptions carefully to avoid misselection.
The dominant pattern is domain-prefixed snake_case (feature_, gate_, goal_, study_, derive_, db_, confer_), which is predictable and consistent. Minor deviations like standup, checkpoint, tracker_status, and oz_shutdown do not fit the prefix pattern, but they are few and still readable.
64 tools is an extreme surface for an agent to hold in context and choose among, especially when many are micro-operations like stash_restore, confer_digest, or goal_membership. Some consolidation into composite tools or subcommands would make the set far more usable without losing capability.
The lifecycle coverage is unusually thorough: features, goals, gates, studies, parity, workers, directives, derivations, backups, conferral, and shutdown workflows all have read/write/action counterparts. The main gap is the absence of a single-feature show/get tool for reading one tracked item's full detail, though feature_list likely covers basic lookup and agents can work around it.