Skip to main content
Glama

Keelen

by io.github.jamie7893

set_ui_review_scenario_cap

Idempotent

Set this web_app project's ui-review scenario budget, or reset it.

``scenario_cap`` is an integer from 6 through 24, or ``null`` to reset to
the platform default of 12. The screenshot cap derives from it and moves
with it, so the two can never starve each other.

Raising is always allowed, including from a completely full manifest.
LOWERING is refused when the default branch already declares more scenarios
or screenshots than the smaller budget allows, and is also refused when that
manifest cannot be read — both caps are enforced when keelen pushes and not
in your CI, so an over-cap manifest fails every push while CI stays green.

Read ``project_status.ui_review`` first to see the live occupancy. Repeated
calls with the same value change nothing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
scenario_capNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses important non-obvious behavior: the screenshot cap derives from scenario_cap, enforcement happens on keelen pushes rather than in CI, an over-cap manifest fails every push while CI stays green, and repeated identical calls change nothing.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: reset semantics, valid values, derived cap behavior, raising/lowering constraints, enforcement timing, pre-read instruction, and idempotency. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and organized from basics to edge cases.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutating configuration tool with two parameters, the description covers preconditions, refusal conditions, default values, enforcement behavior, and idempotency. An output schema exists, so omitting return-value details is acceptable. An agent has enough context to invoke this tool correctly without guessing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly explains scenario_cap's valid range (6-24), the null reset value (12), and the derived screenshot cap. project_id is not explicitly detailed, but 'this web_app project's' in the opening makes it clear enough.

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 first sentence is a concrete verb+resource statement: 'Set this web_app project's ui-review scenario budget, or reset it.' It clearly identifies the resource, the action, and the scope, making it easy to distinguish from sibling setters like set_product_goal and set_product_vision.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides strong usage guidance: read project_status.ui_review first, raising is always allowed, lowering is refused when the manifest declares more scenarios/screenshots or cannot be read, and repeated calls with the same value are no-ops. It gives the agent clear preconditions and failure modes.

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