Skip to main content
Glama

Keelen

by io.github.jamie7893

get_request_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check what happened to a request, and read any questions it asked back.

Intake is async (~5min cadence) - poll periodically. Read `next_action`:
"wait" (still processing), "answer_questions" (call answer_request with one
answer per question), "done" (see generated_roadmap_item_ids), "cancelled"
(terminal, no items), "failed" (see intake_failure_reason).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
thread_idYes
project_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the ~5min async cadence, the meaning of each next_action state, terminal vs. processing states, and where to find failure reasons or generated roadmap items. This is rich, non-redundant transparency.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose, then efficiently presents the async polling behavior and the next_action state machine. Every sentence adds operational value, and the formatting makes the state values easy to parse.

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 exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values, and it still covers the important runtime behavior: async cadence, polling, state transitions, and downstream actions. This is complete for a status-check tool with strong annotations and an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning, but it does not explain project_id or thread_id beyond the implicit 'a request'. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no explicit guidance on how they relate to the request being checked.

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 what happened') and clearly identifies the resource ('a request') plus the additional capability of reading questions the request asked. This distinguishes it from siblings like submit_request, answer_request, and refine_request, which perform different request lifecycle actions.

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: intake is async, so the agent should poll periodically, and it explains how to branch on next_action values, including explicitly calling answer_request when questions need answers. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the polling and branching guidance is strong.

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