Get the owner's known-issues board — open debt with status, temperature (stable/watching) and deadlines. Use it to answer 'what's still broken' or 'what are you working on'. Read-only, closed world.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description echoes both ('Read-only', 'closed world'). It adds modest context by characterizing the board as 'open debt' and listing fields, but adds little behavioral detail beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact at roughly three short sentences, front-loads the core operation, and every clause earns its place. The usage hint and read-only/closed-world clarification are each useful and not padded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, why an agent would call it, and its safety profile. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema carries no burden and the description needs to add no parameter detail. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, this is fully adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('Get the owner's known-issues board') and describes the content ('open debt with status, temperature and deadlines'). This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_issue_detail and get_timeline, which focus on different slices of information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly provides usage context: 'Use it to answer what's still broken or what are you working on'. This gives clear situational guidance. However, it does not name any alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools map cleanly to distinct content types such as profile, projects, issues, diary, experiments, and live-source verification. A few pairs like get_projects/search_projects and get_articles/verify_article touch the same subject matter, but their descriptions clarify the intended action well enough for an agent.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_* for portfolio content, verify_* for external grounding, plus analyze_stack, search_projects, and simulate_architecture. There is no mixing of conventions or vague generic verbs.
18 tools is on the higher end but justified by the portfolio's breadth: content domains, project search/simulation, and open-world verification all have distinct needs. It is slightly heavy but not bloated; each tool has a discernible reason to exist.
The surface covers the full portfolio/interview domain: profile, projects, timeline, articles, repos, packages, issues, engineering history, experiments, principles, and verification. It also includes grounding against live sources, leaving no obvious dead ends for an agent answering questions about the owner.