Skip to main content
Glama
illodev

Workfile

by illodev
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

What to work on next

project_next
Read-onlyIdempotent

Rank actionable cards by priority, filtering for unblocked, unclaimed, or your own tasks, to determine what to do next.

Instructions

Rank actionable cards: unblocked, unclaimed or claimed by you, highest priority first. Answers "what should I do now".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
areaNoRank only cards in these areas. Project-declared, so the accepted values vary; project_workspace reports them.
actorNoWho to attribute this to. Defaults to the MCP client's own name; pass one only to act on another actor's behalf.
limitNoMaximum candidates to rank.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
totalYesActionable cards found before limit was applied.
recordsYesCandidates, most actionable first.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.5.4
    • addedInput schema / properties / actor / description
      Added value: +"Who to attribute this to. Defaults to the MCP client's own name; pass one only to act on another actor's behalf."
    • addedInput schema / properties / area / description
      Added value: +"Rank only cards in these areas. Project-declared, so the accepted values vary; project_workspace reports them."
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / default
      Added value: +5
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Maximum candidates to rank."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "records": {
+      "description": "Candidates, most actionable first.",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "description": "A ranked candidate, carrying `reason` — why the ranking surfaced it.",
+        "properties": {
+          "bodyBytes": {
+            "description": "Size in bytes of the body this projection left out.",
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "created": {
+            "description": "Creation date, YYYY-MM-DD.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "description": "Stable record ID: T-0042, DOC-0003, CHG-0101, ADR-0009.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "incomingTotal": {
+            "description": "How many other records link to this one.",
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "kind": {
+            "description": "Record family: card, doc, change, release or memory.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "path": {
+            "description": "Repository-relative path to the Markdown file.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "recordType": {
+            "description": "Type within the family — a card's type, a document's kind, a memory record's collection.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "description": "Lifecycle status, in the vocabulary of this record's family.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "description": "Human-readable title.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "updated": {
+            "description": "Date of the last write, YYYY-MM-DD.",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "total": {
+      "description": "Actionable cards found before limit was applied.",
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "records",
+    "total"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds behavioral value by defining what 'actionable' means (unblocked, unclaimed or claimed by you) and the ranking logic (highest priority first), which are non-obvious behaviors not in annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The purpose statement and the guiding question are both front-loaded and directly actionable. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only ranking tool with an output schema present, full parameter schema coverage, and comprehensive annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description is complete. It explains what it ranks, the filtering rules, and the ordering logic. No gaps that would confuse an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The area parameter description is useful ('Project-declared, so the accepted values vary; project_workspace reports them'), which adds meaning beyond the schema. The actor and limit parameters are adequately described in the schema and the description doesn't need to repeat them.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Rank actionable cards' with clear scope (unblocked, unclaimed or claimed by you, highest priority first). The description directly answers the question 'what should I do now', distinguishing it from card_list (listing), card_create (creating), etc. Clearly distinct from siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description states it ranks actionable cards with defined inclusion criteria and explicitly frames it as an answer to 'what should I do now'. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, the purpose framing plus sibling context (card_list, search) makes the usage situation clear. Could add exclusions for alternatives but the core context is present.

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/illodev/workfile'

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