Skip to main content
Glama

track_concept_evolution

Analyze how a concept's definition changes throughout a manuscript's development to maintain consistency and track evolution.

Instructions

Track how a concept's definition evolved over time

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_pathNoPath to manuscript directory (defaults to current directory)
concept_nameYesName of the concept to track

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler: extracts concept_name and limit from args, applies pagination limit, delegates to WritersAid.trackConceptEvolution
    private async trackConceptEvolution(args: Record<string, unknown>) {
      const conceptName = args.concept_name as string;
      const limit = resolvePaginationLimit("track_concept_evolution", args.limit as number | undefined);
    
      return this.writersAid.trackConceptEvolution({ conceptName, limit });
    }
  • Core tool logic: calls ConceptTracker.getConceptEvolution, handles not found case, applies limit slicing, formats response with version details
    trackConceptEvolution(options: { conceptName: string; limit?: number }) {
      const evolution = this.conceptTracker.getConceptEvolution(options.conceptName);
    
      if (!evolution) {
        return {
          conceptName: options.conceptName,
          found: false,
          message: "No versions found for this concept",
        };
      }
    
      // Trim versions to limit (default handled by pagination resolver in handler)
      const versionsToReturn = options.limit
        ? evolution.versions.slice(0, options.limit)
        : evolution.versions;
    
      return {
        conceptName: evolution.conceptName,
        found: true,
        versions: versionsToReturn.map((v) => ({
          versionNumber: v.versionNumber,
          definition: v.definition,
          filePath: v.filePath,
          timestamp: new Date(v.timestamp).toISOString(),
          changeRationale: v.changeRationale,
          commitHash: v.commitHash,
        })),
        totalVersions: evolution.totalVersions,
        changeCount: evolution.changeCount,
        firstDefinition: evolution.firstDefinition.definition,
        latestDefinition: evolution.latestDefinition.definition,
      };
    }
  • Input schema definition for the tool, specifying concept_name as required parameter
      name: "track_concept_evolution",
      description: "Track how a concept's definition evolved over time",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          project_path: { type: "string", description: "Path to manuscript directory (defaults to current directory)" },
          concept_name: { type: "string", description: "Name of the concept to track" },
        },
        required: ["concept_name"],
      },
    },
  • Database-backed helper: retrieves all versions of a concept, sorts chronologically, computes evolution summary (first/latest defs, change count)
    getConceptEvolution(conceptName: string): ConceptEvolution | undefined {
      const versions = this.getConceptVersions(conceptName);
    
      if (versions.length === 0) {
        return undefined;
      }
    
      // Versions are sorted DESC, so reverse for chronological order
      const chronological = [...versions].reverse();
    
      return {
        conceptName,
        versions: chronological,
        totalVersions: versions.length,
        firstDefinition: chronological[0],
        latestDefinition: versions[0], // Latest is first in DESC order
        changeCount: versions.length - 1,
      };
    }
  • Pagination configuration defining default (10) and max (50) limits for track_concept_evolution tool, used by resolvePaginationLimit
    export const PAGINATION_DEFAULTS: Record<string, { default: number; max: number }> = {
      find_gaps: { default: 20, max: 100 },
      find_todos: { default: 50, max: 200 },
      find_duplicates: { default: 30, max: 100 },
      check_terminology: { default: 20, max: 50 },
      find_broken_links: { default: 50, max: 200 },
      track_concept_evolution: { default: 10, max: 50 },
      suggest_cross_references: { default: 25, max: 100 },
      analyze_link_graph: { default: 100, max: 500 },
    };
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool tracks evolution over time, implying a read operation, but doesn't specify what data it returns (e.g., timeline, changes), whether it requires specific file formats, or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, performance). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a timeline, list of changes) or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool that likely processes manuscript data, more context on inputs and outputs is needed to be fully helpful.

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 both parameters ('project_path' and 'concept_name') with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool uses 'concept_name' for tracking, which is redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 the tool's purpose: tracking how a concept's definition evolves over time. It specifies the verb 'track' and the resource 'concept's definition', making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'track_file_evolution' or 'find_concept_contradictions', which could have overlapping domains.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for manuscript analysis), or exclusions. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'track_file_evolution', 'find_concept_contradictions'), the lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/xiaolai/claude-writers-aid-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server