Keelen

List Roadmap

list_roadmap

See what is planned for a project and in what order.

Queued rows also say whether the expand picker would elect them
(`electable`) and, when not, why it skips them (`skip_reason`:
awaiting_intake_thread | awaiting_clarification | crash_capped |
noop_capped | crash_cooldown | noop_cooldown | held_on_open_pr | other).
The first reason that applies, in that order, is the one returned.
`awaiting_clarification` means the planner asked a planning question about
the item and waits for the answer: `list_escalations` returns that card
with the item's `roadmap_item_id`. A skipped item ahead of yours does not
delay it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No		queued
`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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description adds genuinely valuable domain behavior: the skip_reason precedence list, the meaning of electable, and the note that a skipped item ahead of yours does not delay it. But it frames the tool as a pure read ('See what is planned') while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, i.e. a stateful operation; that unresolved mismatch undercuts the otherwise strong behavioral content.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, then focused detail on the interesting output fields. Every sentence earns its place, though the long parenthetical enum of skip_reason values is dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, yet the description still explains the key fields (electable, skip_reason, awaiting_clarification). The gaps are the undocumented status parameter and the ambiguity about side effects, so it is not quite a 5.

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% and neither parameter is explained in the text. 'Queued rows' faintly hints that status defaults to 'queued', but no allowed status values or project_id semantics are given, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a clear verb+resource ('See what is planned for a project') and adds the distinctive ordering aspect ('and in what order'), so an agent knows this lists a project's roadmap plan. It does not explicitly contrast with related siblings such as reorder_roadmap or project_status, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied (view a project's planned items) and it usefully cross-references list_escalations for the awaiting_clarification case, giving a concrete routing pointer. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for viewing versus reordering or checking project status.

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.