Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
feature-tracker-mcp

feature-tracker-mcp

by spe-investigator
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

tracker_status

Counts features by status and goal, lists pending gates, and reports progress as done/tracked counts—avoiding misleading percentage regressions.

Instructions

Counts by status and goal, pending gates, and which database and tree were read. Progress is two numbers -- done and tracked -- never a ratio: the denominator growing means real work was found, and a percentage would report that as regression.

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": "tracker_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNoDirectory 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.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly states that progress is never a ratio and explains why a percentage would misreport regression. It also discloses provenance by saying which database and tree were read.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core counts, and the second sentence earns its place by preventing a common misinterpretation. No wasted words.

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 status tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the return content and a key interpretation trap. It could add explicit read-only/ side-effect phrasing, but 'which database and tree were read' strongly implies a non-mutating status read.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the single cwd parameter is already fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

Description states a specific verb 'Counts' and the exact resources counted: status, goal, pending gates, and database/tree provenance. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list and mutation 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?

No guidance is given on when to use tracker_status versus siblings like feature_list, gate_list, or study_status. The purpose implies an overview/status role, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative routing is provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools