Project Tracker MCP Server

by spranab

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

get_summary

Retrieve a specific project summary by its UUID for tracking and review within the Project Tracker MCP Server.

Instructions

Get a specific summary by ID

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": {
      "summary_id": "<summary_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`summary_id`	Yes	UUID of the summary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about permissions, error behavior when the ID does not exist, or what a returned summary contains. The only behavioral signal is the implied read-only nature of 'Get'.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the key scoping detail ('by ID') is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than bloated.

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?

For a one-parameter lookup with a fully documented schema this is minimally adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should at least hint at the return shape or failure mode. It leaves the agent to guess what comes back.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema (UUID of the summary), so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, not even confirming the ID format.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('summary') with the retrieval key ('by ID'), so the basic operation is unambiguous. However it does nothing to distinguish this from close siblings such as get_project_summary or list_summaries, and it never says what a 'summary' entity actually is.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative retrieval tools (list_summaries, search_summaries, get_project_summary), and no preconditions. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the single-record fetch.

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