Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

KirinBoard

by ai.kirinboard
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Initiatives that have grown too big

sub_issue_limit
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists the initiatives in a repository, and the container issues inside them, that hold at least the dashboard's threshold (default 70) of the 100 sub-issues GitHub allows one parent, fullest first: each with its sub-issue count, how many of those are closed, how many slots are free, and whether it is full. GitHub refuses a parent's 101st sub-issue, and closed sub-issues keep their slots. Use it before you add a sub-issue to an initiative, when your human asks why GitHub refused one, or to suggest which initiatives to split. Read-only, and it never fails: if the list cannot be read it says why.

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": "sub_issue_limit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoNoowner/name. Optional when the token covers one repository.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds real context on top of the annotations: it states that GitHub refuses a parent's 101st sub-issue, that closed sub-issues keep their slots, and that the threshold defaults to 70. It also says it is read-only and never fails — if the list cannot be read, it says why. The annotations already cover safety, but this extra failure behavior and the hard limit are new.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The core definition (what is listed, in what order, with what fields) comes first, followed by use cases and then the failure behavior. It is dense but nearly every clause carries information. Slightly long for a tool with one parameter.

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?

The tool has a single optional parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations. The description still describes the shape of each result (sub-issue count, closed count, free slots, full flag), the ordering, and the failure mode, so an agent has everything it needs to call and interpret it.

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?

The schema already documents the only parameter ('repo') at 100% coverage. The description mentions the repository but adds no syntax or format detail, and it refers to a 'threshold (default 70)' that is not in the schema, which risks making an agent look for a parameter that does not exist.

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 description names a specific verb and resource: it lists the initiatives in a repository and the container issues inside them whose sub-issue usage reaches the threshold (default 70 of 100). It also states the ordering (fullest first) and what each entry contains, which no sibling tool offers.

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?

It names three concrete use cases: checking before adding a sub-issue, explaining why GitHub refused one, and suggesting which initiatives to split. It never says when not to use it or where to look for a different answer, so it stops short of a full 5.

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