Skip to main content
Glama

Keelen

by io.github.jamie7893

get_legal_exposure_findings

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a project's legal exposure findings, worst exposure first.

Returns each finding as an OBSERVATION plus the obligation commonly cited
over that pattern, its citation, the date the citation was last checked,
and whether counsel has reviewed the registry entry (`counsel_reviewed`,
false today for every entry). `exposure_order` is an ORDER, never a score:
there is no grade, no percentage, and no overall state in this output.

Read `not_determinable` before you summarise: those are checks that could
not reach a verdict, and leaving them out would turn a partial review into
a clean answer. The `disclaimer_md` field must reach the user.

`limit` defaults to 25 (max 100). `include_all` adds resolved, dismissed,
and out-of-scope rows to the default actionable set. Read-only, no compute,
no rate limit; it works even while the trigger is closed for the project.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
project_idYes
include_allNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that there is no compute, no rate limit, and it works even if the trigger is closed. It also clarifies `exposure_order` is an ORDER, not a score, and warns against interpreting it as a grade/percentage—valuable behavioral nuance beyond the annotations.

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?

Description is front-loaded with the main purpose, then explains key semantics, parameter behavior, and operational notes. It's a bit long but every sentence adds value; no fluff. Well structured with clear separation of output, interpretation, and parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema, the description adds essential semantic details like `exposure_order` being an order not a score, the meaning of `counsel_reviewed`, and the importance of `not_determinable`. It explains edge cases (works while trigger closed) and default behavior. Complete enough for an agent to use 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 has only types/defaults for limit and include_all; description adds meaning: limit defaults to 25 and max 100, include_all adds resolved/dismissed/out-of-scope rows. `project_id` is self-explanatory. This adds value beyond schema, though project_id is not explicitly described (but it's obvious). Coverage is good.

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?

Description clearly states 'Read a project's legal exposure findings, worst exposure first.' This is a specific verb (read) + resource (legal exposure findings) + ordering (worst first), and distinguishes from sibling run_legal_exposure_review (which generates findings) and get_legal_exposure_findings (this is the getter). The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides actionable guidance: read `not_determinable` before summarizing, and ensure `disclaimer_md` reaches the user. It also explains `include_all` semantics (adds resolved, dismissed, out-of-scope) and notes it works while the trigger is closed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with run_legal_exposure_review or other siblings, though the read-only nature is 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