Skip to main content
Glama

Keelen

by io.github.jamie7893

get_control_gap_findings

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a project's security-control observations and review boundaries.

The result groups records by evidence class without a total or an overall
framework outcome. Read `not_determinable` and `outside_review_scope`
before describing any observation. An empty group does not establish that
a control is in place, and `disclaimer_md` must reach the user.

`limit` defaults to 25 (max 100). `include_all` includes resolved,
dismissed, and out-of-scope records. This read-only tool has no compute
quota and remains available after the trigger closes for a project.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
project_idYes
include_allNo

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?

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavior: results are grouped by evidence class with no total or overall outcome, empty groups do not prove a control exists, disclaimer_md must reach the user, and the tool has no compute quota. These are non-obvious traits that help an agent reason about the tool's output.

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 the core purpose, then adds only high-value semantic and operational details. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no filler or repetition of annotations.

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?

Given the output schema is present, the description covers the remaining contextual needs: grouping behavior, lack of totals, meaning of empty groups, include_all semantics, limit behavior, and availability after the trigger closes. The tool is sufficiently well-defined for an agent 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining limit defaults and max, and by clarifying that include_all includes resolved, dismissed, and out-of-scope records. Project_id is implied by the mention of a project, but its exact source or format is not explicitly described.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: Read a project's security-control observations and review boundaries. It clearly distinguishes this read tool from the sibling run_control_gap_review, which triggers a review rather than reading existing findings.

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 gives clear usage context: it is read-only, remains available after the review trigger closes, and should be interpreted with attention to not_determinable and outside_review_scope records. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the intended context is still 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