Reads the unified project timeline to surface execution phases, prioritized plans, and the active cursor (nowDoing, nextUp, lastFinished) for grounded project memory.
Read the unified project Timeline: execution phases, ordered plans (P0 > P1 > P2), and current active cursor (nowDoing, nextUp, lastFinished).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectRoot | 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 does state a key behavior (read-only) and lists what the returned timeline contains. However, it does not disclose how results are scoped by projectRoot or taskContextId, what includeStructured changes, or any assumptions about which timeline is 'unified.'
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?
A single sentence contains the verb, the resource, and the three key output groups without filler. It is front-loaded and every clause adds information.
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 description gives a good sense of the response content, but no output schema exists and parameter behavior is undocumented, so the overall calling context is incomplete. An agent cannot confidently know what happens when only some parameters are passed or what includeStructured toggles.
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% and the description does not explain projectRoot, taskContextId, or includeStructured. While the names hint at their roles, includeStructured is genuinely ambiguous and there is no guidance on optionality or default behavior.
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 opens with a specific verb ('Read') and a precise resource ('the unified project Timeline'), then lists distinguishing contents: execution phases, P0/P1/P2 ordered plans, and active cursor fields. This makes it easy to separate from write/sync siblings such as timeline_sync and step_advance.
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?
The read-only intent is clear, but the description never states when to choose this over related tools or when not to use it. An agent must infer from the verb 'Read' and the tool name that this is the inspection path; no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.