feature-tracker-mcp

feature_unrefined

List features lacking acceptance criteria to identify refine-pass candidates. Surface unrefined work where 'done' lacks explicit definition.

Instructions

Open features with no acceptance criteria — the work list for a refine pass. Until a feature says what done looks like, 'done' is whoever-built-it's opinion.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "feature_unrefined"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cwd`	No	Directory identifying the project and the tree. Defaults to this session's working directory, which in a git worktree is that worktree.
`goal`	No
`limit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does communicate that only features lacking acceptance criteria are returned and frames them as refine work, but it never states whether the operation is read-only or if it has side effects.

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?

Two sentences with the core function in the first and a rhetorical context in the second. It's concise and front-loaded, though the second sentence is not strictly necessary for invocation.

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?

With no annotations or output schema and two undocumented parameters, the description leaves important details unstated: what the returned list looks like, how 'goal' filters, and how 'limit' behaves. It conveys purpose but is incomplete for confident 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?

Only 1 of 3 parameters (cwd) has a schema description, and the tool description does not explain 'goal' or 'limit.' This leaves those parameters semantically opaque, and the prose adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 states a clear verb ('Open') and resource ('features with no acceptance criteria'), and adds the purpose as 'the work list for a refine pass.' This lets an agent distinguish it from general feature_list, though it doesn't explicitly name siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use it—when preparing for a refine pass—by calling it 'the work list for a refine pass.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for not using it, so the guidance remains contextual rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server