feature-tracker-mcp

goal_list

Check existing goal categories, priorities, and item counts before proposing a new feature, preventing near-duplicate goals.

Instructions

Categories with their priority, parallelism cap, and item counts. Every feature must belong to one — an uncategorised item is one nobody picks up. Check here before proposing, so a near-duplicate goal is not created alongside an existing one.

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": "goal_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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the tool returns category metadata and is meant for inspection before proposing, but it does not explicitly state it is read-only, how cwd affects results, or how the list is ordered/grouped.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, each with a clear role: content, domain importance, and actionable usage. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the returned attributes and the reason to call it. It could be slightly more explicit that the tool is read-only and returns a list, but nothing essential is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The only parameter, cwd, is already fully documented in the schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 identifies the resource (categories/goals) and the returned attributes (priority, parallelism cap, item counts), and implies a listing action. It is distinguishable from feature_list and goal_show because it emphasizes categories and the pre-proposal check, though it never explicitly states a verb like 'list'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a concrete usage instruction: check this tool before proposing a feature so near-duplicate goals are not created. This is clear context, but it does not name alternative tools or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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

Deploy Server