Skip to main content
Glama

Keelen

by io.github.jamie7893

get_provisioning_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a new project has finished setting up and is ready to build.

Returns overall (provisioning | ready | errored), a 7-stage checklist, and a
user-facing error_kind when a stage failed. next_action is "wait" with
poll_after_seconds (~10s) while provisioning or errored, and "done" when
overall is 'ready' (which also marks onboarding complete) — then steer the
loop with submit_request(project_id, text). 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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context: return shape (overall, 7-stage checklist, error_kind), next_action semantics, ~10s poll interval, onboarding completion side effect, and tenant-scoped 404 behavior. This goes well beyond the structured 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?

The description is compact yet information-dense, front-loaded with the core purpose, then enumerating return fields, polling behavior, and scoping in a logical flow. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no schema description, the description fully covers the tool's contract: what it returns, how to interpret next_action, when to poll, what happens on completion, and authentication/tenancy constraints. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to describe return values in detail.

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?

The schema only provides project_id as a required string with no description. The tool description compensates by explaining that the project must belong to the caller's workspace and will 404 otherwise, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It doesn't specify how to obtain or format project_id, but the parameter is simple and self-descriptive.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and clearly identifies the resource ('a new project') and the condition of interest ('finished setting up and is ready to build'). It also differentiates itself from sibling status tools like get_onboarding_status and project_status by focusing on the provisioning pipeline.

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 provides clear polling context: wait with poll_after_seconds while provisioning/errored, and when ready, 'steer the loop with submit_request(project_id, text).' It doesn't explicitly exclude alternative tools, but it gives enough actionable guidance for when to invoke and what to do next.

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