Skip to main content
Glama

Keelen

by io.github.jamie7893

cancel_roadmap_item

DestructiveIdempotent

Cancel / close a single roadmap item (get its id from list_roadmap).

Use this to close a DELIVERED or duplicate item that keeps re-parking: when
the work already shipped, every expand produces no dev-ready tasks and files a
recurring `roadmap_item_parked` escalation you have to keep acking. Cancelling
drops the item out of the expand queue AND resolves any open expand-lane
escalation for it. Idempotent for an already expanded/cancelled item; refuses
(409) while the item is actively being expanded (retry once that iter ends).
Returns {id, status, changed, next_step}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
item_idYes
project_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses multiple behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it drops the item from the expand queue, resolves open expand-lane escalations, is idempotent after cancellation, and returns a 409 conflict while actively being expanded. It also specifies the return payload, giving full transparency.

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 structured with the purpose first, followed by usage, behavior, and return value. Each sentence adds distinct information without redundancy, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 description covers purpose, usage, edge cases (idempotency, 409 conflict), and return value. With only two parameters and an output schema, this is sufficiently complete. The annotations provide safety context, and the description adds the necessary operational details.

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 input schema lacks any parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains how to obtain item_id (via list_roadmap), but does not explain project_id. Given the low schema coverage, this is a partial gap. The parameter list is simple, so it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 clearly states the verb 'Cancel / close' and the resource 'single roadmap item', and distinguishes itself by directing the user to get the id from list_roadmap. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous relative to siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: for DELIVERED or duplicate items that keep re-parking, and explains the problem (recurring escalations). It also gives context about what cancelling does, effectively guiding the agent to choose this over alternatives like resolving escalations directly.

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