Keelen

List Escalations

list_escalations

See what the work is stuck on and waiting for a human decision about.

`project_status` only COUNTS open escalations; this returns each one with its
kind, reason, detail_md, recommended_action, and (when task-scoped) the
blocked task's title + PR url. A card about a roadmap item carries its
`roadmap_item_id` (null for a task-only, project-level or synthetic row),
which matches the `id` in `list_roadmap`. A "forever-paused" project with no open
`project_pause` row is surfaced as a synthetic `orphan:<project_id>` row.
Each row carries a server-derived `task_retry_available` flag and an exact
`next_tool`: eligible recovery blocks route to `retry_blocked_task`, roadmap
parks to `rearm_roadmap_item`, platform conflicts to their structured
resolver, an orphan block whose task keeps its own PR to the owner tool
`requeue_for_review` (it takes the row's task_id, not its id), other stale
work to `replan_task`, and only safe auxiliary cards to
`resolve_escalation`. For an active workspace owner, an eligible platform
conflict on a web_app task also lists `evidence_selector_cells`, the input
of the owner-only `correct_evidence_selector` decision.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing edge cases (synthetic `orphan:<project_id>` rows, null `roadmap_item_id` for task-only/synthetic rows), server-derived flags, and a critical invocation nuance — that `requeue_for_review` takes the row's task_id rather than its id. Annotations only assert readOnlyHint=false/idempotentHint=false; the description supplies the real operational context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with a crisp purpose sentence, but the middle is a single dense block enumerating return fields and next_tool routing. Since an output schema exists, much of the return-field enumeration is arguably redundant, and the routing detail crowds the core message.

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?

For a lookup-style tool with an output schema, it is more than complete on behavior and routing. The one clear hole is the undocumented required parameter, which leaves the agent without guidance on what `project_id` should be.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the single required `project_id` parameter is never explained, nor is its scope (does it imply workspace scoping?). The description never mentions the parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('See what the work is stuck on... this returns each one') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `project_status` ('only COUNTS open escalations; this returns each one'). An agent can tell exactly what this returns versus its nearest alternative.

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?

It clearly names the alternative (`project_status`) and the condition that separates them, and it routes each row type to a specific follow-up tool (`retry_blocked_task`, `rearm_roadmap_item`, `replan_task`, `resolve_escalation`). It stops short of stating when NOT to reach for this tool or prerequisites for calling it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Keelen tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.