Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

KirinBoard

by ai.kirinboard
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

What is closest to finished

quick_wins
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists what is closest to finished in a repository, so you can pick work that completes something. Two lists, in the dashboard's Quick wins order: initiatives (an initiative is a parent ticket that groups the tickets of one larger piece of work) with open tickets, almost done first, then open, then those whose remaining tickets are a new part, each with what is left and its open tickets, marking the ones free to pick up (not started and claimed by nobody); and the open pull requests closest to merging: ready to merge, waiting for review, approved but needing a rebase, one failing check, the rest, drafts last, each with what is left before it can merge. Use it when your human asks what is nearly done or what to finish next, or when you are choosing what to work on. kind limits it to initiatives or pull requests. Each row carries the dashboard's tag (action_label, such as Merge Ready, Review Needed or Check to Fix) and quick, true when it is one step from done: act on quick rows first. A pull request also says who opened it and which tickets it closes (closes, and the initiative it finishes a ticket of). Only the 50 most recently updated open pull requests are read; the answer says when there are more, and when check results could not be read. Read-only, and it never fails: if the list cannot be read it says why. Before starting a ticket, check it with board and claim it as usual.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "quick_wins"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoall (the default), initiative, or pull_request.
repoNoowner/name. Optional when the token covers one repository.
limitNoHow many of each list (default 10).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive; the description adds materially beyond that: 'it never fails: if the list cannot be read it says why', the 50-most-recently-updated pull request cap with disclosure when there are more, and disclosure when check results are unreadable. It also specifies ordering semantics and the `quick` / `action_label` row fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the middle is a single sprawling run-on sentence enumerating every ordering bucket ('almost done first, then open, then those whose remaining tickets are a new part...' and 'ready to merge, waiting for review, approved but needing a rebase, one failing check, the rest, drafts last'). That taxonomy helps interpret results but is far denser than needed for tool selection.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: row fields (`action_label`, `quick`, PR author, `closes`, the initiative finished), list ordering, truncation notices, and failure behavior. An agent could act on the output without further documentation.

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 all three parameters are already documented, and the description largely repeats that ('kind limits it to initiatives or pull requests'). It adds mild value by clarifying that results are 'two lists' (implying `limit` applies per list) and by noting the server-side 50-PR read cap, but `repo` is never discussed in the description.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Lists what is closest to finished in a repository', then enumerates the two lists (initiatives with open tickets, open pull requests near merge). An agent knows exactly what comes back. It never names or contrasts the sibling `almost_done`, whose scope sounds adjacent, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: 'when your human asks what is nearly done or what to finish next, or when you are choosing what to work on', plus a follow-up rule ('Before starting a ticket, check it with board and claim it as usual'). No exclusions are stated, and the overlap with `almost_done` / `needs_you` is not addressed.

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

All KirinBoard toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources