Project Tracker MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_summaries

Retrieve project summaries with optional filters for type, tag, or related entity to review progress, decisions, and updates across a project hierarchy.

Instructions

List summaries with optional filters for type, tags, or related entities

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": "list_summaries"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tag`	No	Filter by tag
`limit`	No	Maximum number of summaries to return (default: 50)
`summary_type`	No	Filter by summary type
`related_entity_id`	No	Filter by specific entity UUID
`related_entity_type`	No	Filter by related entity type

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description omits ordering, pagination/limit behavior, permission needs, and what a result set looks like, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its filterability are stated immediately. It is efficient, though deliberately terse rather than polished.

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 is rich (enums, defaults) and there is no output schema to explain, so the description need not document returns. Still, with zero annotations, a list tool arguably warrants a note on scope or ordering; what is present is adequate but thin.

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 schema already documents each parameter; baseline 3 applies. The description's mention of 'type, tags, or related entities' loosely maps to the parameters but adds no syntax or semantics beyond them, and says 'tags' plural while the schema exposes a single 'tag'.

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 gives a clear verb ('List') and resource ('summaries') and enumerates the filterable dimensions. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling list/read tools such as search_summaries or get_summary, so an agent still needs schema inspection to route correctly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Stating that filters are optional implies the tool is for enumerating summaries, which is adequate minimum-viable guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use clause and no contrast with the obvious alternative search_summaries, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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