Skip to main content
Glama

Keelen

by io.github.jamie7893

control_scheduler

Idempotent

Start, pause, or resume a project's autonomous work.

`action` is one of: "enable" | "disable" | "resume" | "process_now".
- enable/disable flip scheduler_enabled (the loop dispatches only enabled,
  status='active' projects).
- resume clears a pause (peak/backoff/manual) so the project dispatches again.
- process_now durably prioritizes and immediately attempts the next intake
  batch, independent of the dev scheduler switch. A gate returns a typed
  reason and recovery step instead of a spawn promise.
Returns the resulting scheduler state.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYes
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 goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the dispatch condition (only enabled, status='active' projects), the distinction between resetting a pause and flipping the scheduler, and the durable, independent behavior of process_now. It also discloses that the gate returns a typed reason and recovery step instead of a spawn promise, which is valuable runtime context.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary and then organized into a compact bullet list where each bullet covers one action's behavior. Every sentence adds meaningful information, and there is no redundant filler.

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 all four actions, their scheduler effects, the dispatch condition, and the distinctive gate behavior of process_now. It also states that the tool returns the resulting scheduler state, which, combined with the presence of an output schema, gives the agent sufficient context to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description carries the parameter documentation burden. It fully explains the `action` parameter by listing the allowed values and their effects, which the schema does not. `project_id` is only implied by the overall phrasing, so a bit more explicit detail about it would push this to a 5.

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 opening sentence states a clear verb/resource pairing: controlling a project's autonomous work via the scheduler. The enumerated action values (enable, disable, resume, process_now) remove any ambiguity about what the tool does, and it is clearly distinct from the surrounding sibling tools.

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?

The description explains when each action is appropriate: enable/disable flips the scheduler enabled flag, resume clears a pause, and process_now forces an immediate intake batch. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the action semantics make the intended usage clear.

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