feature-tracker-mcp

gate_list

List pending human decisions awaiting approval in a project, optionally filtered by status. Read-only, so checking approval gates costs no work and changes nothing.

Instructions

Decisions awaiting a human. Read-only; costs no work.

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": "gate_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the operation is read-only and costs no work, which is useful safety and cost information. However, it does not describe what a decision entry looks like, whether results are paginated, what the default status is, or what happens when no decisions are awaiting a human, so behavioral transparency is only partially addressed.

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 extremely short and front-loads the core purpose and safety profile in two phrases. Every clause carries some signal: "Decisions awaiting a human" is purpose, "Read-only" is safety, "costs no work" is operational cost. While it is under-specified in other dimensions, it is not bloated or redundant.

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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin to be complete. It does not explain the status parameter's meaning or default, what fields each decision entry contains, or how this tool relates to gate_queue and other gate_* siblings. An agent could call it but would be guessing about the semantics of important inputs and outputs.

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 only 50%: the cwd parameter is documented in the schema, but the status parameter is only given an enum without explanation. The tool description does not compensate by explaining status semantics or defaults. An agent cannot confidently know whether omitting status returns pending decisions, all decisions, or something else.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description identifies the resource as decisions awaiting a human and marks the operation as read-only, so an agent can infer this is a list operation. However, it never explicitly states a verb like 'list' or 'show', and it does not distinguish itself from similar list-like siblings such as gate_queue or gate_list variants. The phrase 'Decisions awaiting a human' is helpful but does not fully clarify what the tool returns or how it relates to the other gate_* tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gate_queue, gate_reconcile, or gate_raise. The comment 'Read-only; costs no work' implies it is a safe, cheap operation, but it does not state when a user should choose gate_list over other decision-related tools. Without exclusions or alternative routing, an agent has limited basis for selecting this tool.

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

Deploy Server