Skip to main content
Glama

upsert_progress

Save a work checkpoint to the active thread and project PROGRESS.md, recording goal, focus, next steps, and blockers. Avoids misplacement by targeting a known thread or creating one when missing.

Instructions

Save a checkpoint to active thread state and project PROGRESS.md.

    Prefer a known thread_id so the checkpoint cannot land on the wrong
    thread. If selection is ambiguous the tool can request a thread_id;
    force_new_thread explicitly starts another outcome. Depending on
    create_thread_if_missing, a missing thread may be created as a side effect.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalNo
focusNo
titleNo
contentNo
thread_idNo
next_stepsNo
resume_stepNo
source_toolNo
project_slugNo
blocked_reasonNo
workspace_pathNo
force_new_threadNo
create_thread_if_missingNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.12.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a side effect (creating a thread if missing) and notes that force_new_thread starts a new outcome. However, it does not mention whether existing checkpoints are overwritten, what happens on failure, or any destructive aspects. The disclosure is partial but adds some value beyond the schema.

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?

The description is a concise three-sentence paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical without being verbose.

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 the tool's complexity (13 parameters, no annotations) and the existence of an output schema, the description is only partially complete. It covers key decision points (thread selection) but leaves many parameters unexplained, making it difficult for an agent to know what to pass for fields like goal, focus, or workspace_path. The output schema mitigates return-value ambiguity, but the input semantics are incomplete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 13 parameters. It only explains three (thread_id, force_new_thread, create_thread_if_missing). The remaining parameters (goal, focus, title, content, next_steps, resume_step, source_tool, project_slug, blocked_reason, workspace_path) are completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. This is a significant gap for a tool with many optional fields.

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 clear action: 'Save a checkpoint to active thread state and project PROGRESS.md.' This is specific about what the tool does and which resources it affects. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like upsert_thread and upsert_project by targeting progress tracking specifically.

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 explicit guidance on when to use thread_id, force_new_thread, and create_thread_if_missing, including a caveat about ambiguous thread selection and side effects of thread creation. It does not explicitly compare against alternative tools, but the context is clear for invoking this tool correctly.

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