Saga MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

tracker_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search projects, epics, tasks, and notes by keyword to quickly locate relevant items. Returns categorized previews so you can identify matches before opening full details.

Instructions

Search projects, epics, tasks and notes by keyword. Returns categorized previews — use task_get or note_list for full text.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "tracker_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max results per entity type
`query`	Yes	Search keywords
`branch`	No	Git branch filter: "current" = active branch, "" = branch-agnostic only, omit = all.
`project_id`	No	Scope to one project. Defaults to SAGA_PROJECT if set, else the whole database.
`entity_types`	No	Limit search to specific entity types (omit for all)
`include_archived`	No	Include archived epics and their tasks.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.16.0Sep 9, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / project_id / description

Previous value: -"Scope to one project. Needed when a single database holds several projects; defaults to the SAGA_PROJECT env var if set, otherwise the whole database."New value: +"Scope to one project. Defaults to SAGA_PROJECT if set, else the whole database."

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.10.0Sep 6, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / branch / description

Previous value: -"Filter epic/task results by git branch. Pass \"current\" to auto-detect; pass empty string to restrict to branch-agnostic epics. Omit to include all."New value: +"Git branch filter: \"current\" = active branch, \"\" = branch-agnostic only, omit = all."

addedInput schema / properties / include_archived

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Include archived epics and their tasks.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / project_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Scope to one project. Needed when a single database holds several projects; defaults to the SAGA_PROJECT env var if set, otherwise the whole database.",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.5May 12, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / branch

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Filter epic/task results by git branch. Pass \"current\" to auto-detect; pass empty string to restrict to branch-agnostic epics. Omit to include all.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv1.5.3Mar 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With annotations already marking this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it returns categorized previews and directs the agent away from full-text retrieval. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure without contradicting the annotations.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the output type is stated, and the pointer to full-text tools earns its place. Every sentence carries useful information.

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?

Given six parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains the tool's role, the preview nature of results, and where to go for full text. A little more detail about the exact response shape would be helpful, but the current text plus schema is sufficient for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description itself adds only the general notion of searching 'by keyword' and preview output, which aligns with query but does not materially enhance the schema's parameter documentation.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Search'), the resources ('projects, epics, tasks and notes'), and the keyword-based scope. It also distinguishes itself from retrieval tools by noting it returns 'categorized previews' rather than full text, so an agent can tell it apart from task_get and note_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?

The description provides clear usage context: use this tool for keyword search and previews, and switch to task_get or note_list when full text is needed. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions or mention sibling note_search, but the guidance is sufficiently clear for typical search-versus-retrieval decisions.

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