Skip to main content
Glama

Keelen

by io.github.jamie7893

clear_horizon_pin

Idempotent

Clear a queued roadmap item's horizon pin (now/next/later → none).

A horizon pin dominates the queue sort, so `reorder_roadmap` cannot move a
pinned item out of its band — a stale `now` pin on a delivered/duplicate item
clogs the front of the queue. This unpins it and reprices the queue so the
item follows plain priority order again (and reorder_roadmap can then move it).
Only queued items carry a settable pin (in-flight / shipped items derive
theirs), so this refuses (422) on a non-queued item — use cancel_roadmap_item
to close a delivered item. Returns {id, previous_pin, horizon_pin, 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?

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing side effects (reprices queue, affects reorder_roadmap), the 422 error on non-queued items, and the returned structure. Annotations show this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but idempotent; the description adds context about the queue behavior and error handling.

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 tight and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence, followed by concise behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place—no redundancy or padding.

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 tool with a simple two-parameter schema and output schema, the description fully covers the necessary context: the rationale for using it, the domain constraint (queued only), the error behavior, and the return value shape. Nothing important is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly identifies item_id as the roadmap item, but does not explicitly elaborate on either parameter's purpose or relationship (e.g., project_id scoping). While the description's context helps a bit, it doesn't add meaning to the parameters themselves.

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 identifies the action ('Clear a queued roadmap item's horizon pin') and the resource (roadmap item's horizon pin). It distinguishes itself from related tools by naming reorder_roadmap and cancel_roadmap_item, making its unique function explicit.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use: to unpin a stale pin that is clogging the queue, and when-not-to-use: on non-queued items (refuses with 422). It names an alternative (cancel_roadmap_item) for closing delivered items, giving clear usage boundaries.

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