Skip to main content
Glama

Keelen

by io.github.jamie7893

list_roadmap

Read-onlyIdempotent

See what is planned for a project and in what order.

Queued rows also say whether the expand picker would elect them
(`electable`) and, when not, why it skips them (`skip_reason`:
crash_capped | noop_capped | crash_cooldown | noop_cooldown |
awaiting_intake_thread | held_on_open_pr | other). A skipped item ahead of
yours does not delay it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoqueued
project_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing electable and skip_reason behavior, the full list of skip reasons, and the reassurance that a skipped preceding item does not delay yours. This is significant, non-obvious context.

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 tightly composed: one sentence for the primary purpose, then a short paragraph for the one high-value edge case. The pipe-separated list of skip reasons is dense but organized and earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be described. The description covers the core purpose and the subtle queued-row behavior. Minor gaps remain: 'expand picker' is not explained, and status parameter values beyond 'queued' are unspecified, but overall it is quite complete for a read-only list tool.

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%, and the description provides almost no parameter semantics. It only hints at 'queued' through the phrase 'Queued rows' and the schema default. Allowed status values and the exact role of project_id are left to inference, so the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

States a clear verb and resource: 'See what is planned for a project and in what order.' This distinguishes it from mutating siblings like cancel_roadmap_item or reorder_roadmap, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or draw the distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implied usage is clear: call this when you want the planned roadmap for a project. The skipped-row explaination gives useful context about what you will see, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statements or alternatie tool mentions are present.

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

All Keelen toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource and action duo, even within clusters like request handling or security reviews. The get_ vs run_ pairs are clearly separated, and descriptions explicitly contrast confusing alternatives such as archive_project vs delete_project.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set overwhelmingly follows verb_noun snake_case (submit_request, list_projects, resolve_escalation). The one visible deviation is project_status, which breaks the get_/pattern, and signup is a single-word verb instead of sign_up.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and spans auth, billing, project lifecycle, roadmap, escalations, product documents, and multiple review types. Most tools earn their place, but the surface is too large for one server and would be more coherent split into focused servers.

Completeness4/5

The domain coverage is broad: full project lifecycle, request intake/refinement, roadmap manipulation, escalation handling, product doc read/write, and security/legal review flows. Minor gaps exist, most notably no dedicated task-listing or task-update tool, but agents can work around these via project_status and list_escalations.

Resources