Skip to main content
Glama

Keelen

by io.github.jamie7893

close_task

DestructiveIdempotent

Close a task that should not be built — a duplicate, or work already shipped.

Use this when a task on the board is obsolete: the change already landed in
another PR, a sibling task covers it, or the user changed direction. The
task is marked `cancelled` and keeps ALL of its history (acceptance
criteria, QA steps, iterations) — nothing is deleted.

`reason` is REQUIRED and is recorded on the audit trail; say why in one
line. Pass `superseded_by_pr_number` (or `superseded_by_task_id`) when the
work was genuinely delivered somewhere else — that records verified
provenance instead of a bare abandon. Closing does NOT claim the content is
on the default branch, so any task that declared a dependency on this one
keeps waiting; deliver or re-plan those separately.

Refuses with 409 while the task is being worked on by a running iteration
(stop the machine first, or wait for it to finish). A task in another
workspace 404s. Idempotent: closing an already-closed task changes nothing.

The response echoes `open_tasks`: how many tasks are still open on the
project, counted after the close commits. Check it — if it did not drop,
the ticket was already closed and this call changed nothing. It is the same
count `project_status` returns, and neither counts a closed task as open.

Prefer this over leaving a dead task on the board: unfinished tasks count
against the project's planning capacity, so stale duplicates quietly stop
new roadmap items from being expanded.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonYes
task_idYes
project_idYes
superseded_by_task_idNo
superseded_by_pr_numberNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses behavior beyond annotations: the task is marked cancelled but keeps all history, the reason is recorded on the audit trail, superseded_by parameters record provenance, closing does not claim delivery on the default branch, and the operation is idempotent. It also explains the response count and the planning-capacity impact. The destructiveHint annotation is not contradicted; the description clarifies what 'destructive' means here.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then organized into logical sections: usage triggers, behavior/requirements, error cases, response interpretation, and rationale. It is longer than minimal but each paragraph adds distinct and necessary information, with no wasted words.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description explains the meaning of the echoed `open_tasks` count, how to interpret a non-decreasing count, error behavior, idempotency, and dependency implications. This is comprehensive coverage for a mutating tool with subtle side effects and edge cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful guidance for `reason` (required, one line, audit trail) and for when to use `superseded_by_pr_number` or `superseded_by_task_id`. While `project_id` and `task_id` are not explicitly explained, their names are self-evident, and the optional parameters receive the needed context.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Close a task'), defines the target ('a duplicate, or work already shipped'), and makes clear the tool is for cancelling/obsoleting tasks rather than deleting or re-planning them. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cancel_roadmap_item and replan_task by focusing on task-level closure.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('Use this when a task on the board is obsolete...') and provides concrete triggers such as 'already landed in another PR' or 'user changed direction'. It also describes refusal conditions (409 during a running iteration, 404 for other workspaces) and directs dependent tasks to 'deliver or re-plan those separately'.

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