feature-tracker-mcp

study_design

Record the agreed method before executing a study, preventing post-hoc selection. Pre-register the design so revisions are counted and audits stay possible.

Instructions

Record the method agreed with the principal, BEFORE execution. This is pre-registration and it is the point of the design phase: a method chosen after seeing the data can be selected — consciously or not — for the answer it produces. Call this once, at consensus, and do not execute a study that has no method recorded. Revising a method later is allowed and is counted, because a silently revised method is indistinguishable from a fitted one.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "method": "<method>"
    },
    "name": "study_design"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`cwd`	No	Directory identifying the project and the tree. Defaults to this session's working directory, which in a git worktree is that worktree.
`actor`	No
`method`	Yes	How the question will actually be answered — the data, the comparison, the unit.
`conferral`	No	Required. The peer DRAFTS here rather than checks. A method is attacked best by whoever did not write it, and the falsifier is the part a single reasoner is least able to test, because it asks how its own expected answer could be wrong.
`falsifier`	No	What would show the expected answer is wrong. A study with no stated way to be wrong is advocacy with citations.
`decisive_evidence`	No	What result would settle it, in either direction, agreed in advance.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it explains the pre-registration rationale, that revisions are later allowed and counted, and that a silently revised method is indistinguishable from a fitted one. These are meaningful behavioral facts beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place, with the action and timing front-loaded and the rationale and constraints following. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The schema richly documents the nested conferral object and method, but the description never explains what 'id' refers to, whether this call creates or updates a record, or how a later revision is technically performed. The schema's 'Required' note on conferral also conflicts with the top-level required list, leaving ambiguity.

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?

Schema coverage is 71% and the schema's own parameter descriptions are detailed, so the baseline of 3 applies. The free-text description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond referring to the method, but the schema compensates well.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: 'Record the method agreed with the principal, BEFORE execution.' It clearly frames this as the pre-registration step in the design phase and distinguishes it from execution and outcome tools by naming the artifact and timing.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this once, at consensus' and 'do not execute a study that has no method recorded,' giving clear when and when-not guidance. It does not name alternative tools, but the context is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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

Deploy Server