Synchronize development progress across conversations by recording what you are doing, what is next, and what was completed in the project timeline.
Synchronize development cursor and active focus across conversations. Updates nowDoing, nextUp, and active step in the timeline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nextUp | No | ||
| planId | No | ||
| stepId | No | ||
| nowDoing | No | ||
| projectRoot | No | ||
| lastFinished | No | ||
| touchedFiles | No | ||
| taskContextId | No | ||
| includeStructured | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Input schema / properties / taskContextIdAdded value: +{
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool mutates nowDoing, nextUp, and the active step, and mentions the cross-conversation scope, but it omits side effects, whether values are overwritten, idempotency, required scoping fields, or return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It earns its place, though it could add a usage note without becoming bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides almost no context for how to invoke it correctly or what happens when optional parameters are omitted. This is far from complete for a fairly complex sync operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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, but it only clarifies nowDoing and nextUp, with 'active step' loosely mapping to stepId. Parameters like planId, projectRoot, taskContextId, touchedFiles, lastFinished, and includeStructured are inadequately explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Synchronize'), a specific resource ('development cursor and active focus across conversations'), and lists the concrete fields it updates (nowDoing, nextUp, active step). This clearly separates it from siblings like timeline_view (viewing) and source_sync (source code).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as step_advance, timeline_view, or source_sync, and no when-not-to-use conditions. The 'across conversations' phrase implies a use case, but the agent is left to infer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.