ADHD Progress Hub

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

upsert_project

Create or update a project entry in the ADHD Progress Hub, setting metadata such as title, workspace path, repository, energy level, parent, and forge targeting to persist local configuration.

Instructions

Create or update a project registry entry and its explicit metadata.

    Use when setting title, workspace path, repository, energy, parent, or forge
    targeting. parent_slug nests under any project (unlimited depth; cycles rejected).
    This persists local Hub project configuration; it does not by itself create,
    rename, or delete a remote forge repository.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`slug`	No
`title`	Yes
`energy`	No	unknown
`repo_url`	No
`forge_repo`	No
`description`	No
`forge_owner`	No
`parent_slug`	No
`workspace_path`	No
`forge_wiki_path`	No
`forge_project_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.16.1Sep 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / parent_slug

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Parent Slug"
+}

First observedv0.12.0Sep 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states this persists local Hub configuration, does not touch remote forge repositories, and rejects parent cycles. It could additionally explain whether unspecified fields are cleared or preserved on update, but the disclosed behavior is substantive.

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?

Four focused sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and an important boundary. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 11 parameters, no schema-level descriptions, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it covers purpose, key parameter intent, side effects, and a critical non-goal. It could be more complete by directing the agent to sibling tools for rename or delete operations, but it is not missing essential call information.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It groups parameters by category and adds real meaning for parent_slug via 'unlimited depth; cycles rejected,' but several parameters such as slug, description, forge_owner, forge_wiki_path, and forge_project_id are only vaguely bundled under 'forge targeting'.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create or update a project registry entry and its explicit metadata.' It clearly lists the fields involved and explicitly distinguishes the tool from remote forge repository operations, so an agent can tell it apart from rename_project and delete_project.

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 gives an explicit 'Use when' clause covering the settable fields: title, workspace path, repository, energy, parent, and forge targeting. It does not name alternative sibling tools for local project management, but the remote/local distinction prevents obvious misuse.

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