WeTrack Enterprise MCP Server

wetrack_get_reports

Fetch unified project reports with stat cards, distributions, progress, and sprint burndown. Filter by project, sprint, status, priority, user, or custom date range.

Instructions

Unified Reports Dashboard — scoped dynamically for Admin/Manager/Employee. Includes stat cards, status/priority distributions, project progress, sprint burndown, and summary table.

Args: project_id: Filter by project UUID. sprint_id: Filter by sprint UUID. status_id: Filter by ticket status ID. priority_id: Filter by ticket priority ID. user_id: Scope to tickets assigned to this user UUID. burndown_range: Burndown scope — 'this_month', 'this_week', 'last_30_days', 'custom'. burndown_from: Start date for custom burndown range (YYYY-MM-DD). burndown_to: End date for custom burndown range (YYYY-MM-DD). page: Page number (default: 1). limit: Rows per page (default: 10).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`limit`	No
`user_id`	No
`sprint_id`	No
`status_id`	No
`project_id`	No
`burndown_to`	No
`priority_id`	No
`burndown_from`	No
`burndown_range`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It describes what data is included but omits key behaviors: whether it's read-only, how filters combine, pagination semantics, data freshness, or any side effects. The 'scoped dynamically' phrase is vague and unhelpful.

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?

The description is efficiently structured: a one-line purpose statement followed by a clean, alphabetized list of parameters with terse explanations. Everything earns its place, with no redundant information.

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?

Given 10 optional parameters and an output schema, the description enumerates parameters well but lacks guidance on when to use the tool (vs. siblings), any prerequisites (e.g., authentication), or how filters interact. The existence of an output schema covers return values, so the remaining gaps are in usage context and behavioral detail.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero descriptions (0% coverage), and the description provides clear, actionable semantics for every parameter. It explains the role of each filter (e.g., 'project_id: Filter by project UUID'), lists valid values for burndown_range, and specifies date formats. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 clearly states it is a 'Unified Reports Dashboard' and lists the contents (stat cards, distributions, burndown, summary table), giving a precise purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling reporting tools like wetrack_get_dashboard or wetrack_get_project_reports, so it's not fully distinct.

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?

The description implies this is for a comprehensive/unified report, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is only implied, not stated.

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

Deploy Server