Skip to main content
Glama

Keelen

by io.github.jamie7893

get_product_vision

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a project's current product vision (what the product is for).

READ THIS BEFORE YOU CALL `set_product_vision`: the setter REPLACES the
whole document rather than appending to it, so writing without reading
first silently discards whatever the user already recorded. To add a line,
read the current text, edit it, and set the full result back.

Returns {project_id, product_vision_md, updated_at}. `product_vision_md` is
None when no vision has been set. Tenant-scoped: a project not in the
caller's workspace 404s.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: exact return shape, `None` when no vision exists, tenant scoping, and the 404 behavior for projects outside the caller's workspace. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: it states the operation, warns about the setter's destructive replacement behavior, provides the safe usage pattern, documents the return value, and notes tenant scoping. The warning is front-loaded and clearly separated, making the most important operational guidance prominent.

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?

With a single parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description fully covers what an agent needs to call this tool correctly. It even includes the non-obvious 404 behavior and the None case, making the tool's contract complete.

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%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It clarifies that `project_id` is tenant-scoped and that out-of-workspace projects 404, adding semantic context beyond the bare parameter name. For a single obvious string parameter this is sufficient, though a bit more explicit format detail would be needed for a higher score.

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 ('Read') and resource ('a project's current product vision'), and clarifies what product vision means ('what the product is for'). It is clearly differentiated from the sibling `set_product_vision` and from `get_product_goal` by naming the exact resource.

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?

The description explicitly instructs reading before calling `set_product_vision`, explaining why (the setter replaces rather than appends) and how to add a line (read, edit, set full result back). This gives the agent concrete when-to-use and how-to-sequence guidance.

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