Skip to main content
Glama

Keelen

by io.github.jamie7893

open_dashboard

Get a one-click, pre-authenticated dashboard sign-in link for the owner.

The engine-connect step — and any dashboard task (billing card update, a
project page) — needs a signed-in browser. Because this server has already
authenticated the workspace owner, this mints a single-use magic-link login
token and returns a `/login?token=…` deep link: opening it signs the user
straight into the dashboard (no email round-trip, no password) and lands
them where onboarding left off. Send the user the returned `login_url`; it
works once and expires in 15 minutes — call again for a fresh one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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?

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the token is single-use, expires in 15 minutes, bypasses email/password authentication, requires a pre-authenticated server context, and returns a deep link that lands the user at the proper onboarding location. This fully compensates for the sparse annotation hints.

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?

Although the description is several sentences long, each sentence earns its place. The first sentence states the main purpose, and subsequent sentences provide needed context on when to use it, how the token works, the expiry, and how the result is consumed. No fluff or repetition exists.

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?

For a tool with no parameters, the description is exceptionally thorough: it explains the prerequisite (already authenticated owner), the behavior (single-use token, 15-minute expiry), the output (`/login?token=...`), when to use it, and how the user should receive it. This covers all practical usage scenarios despite minimal structured schema/annotation data.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete and the description needs no parameter clarification. The description adds meaning by explaining the output field (`login_url`), its characteristics, and how it should be used, which is valuable since there are no parameters to document.

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 opens with a specific, action-oriented verb: 'Get a one-click, pre-authenticated dashboard sign-in link for the owner.' It clearly identifies the resource (a login link/token) and differentiates this tool from sibling dashboard/onboarding tools by focusing on the magic-link minting mechanism.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: before dashboard tasks such as the engine-connect step, billing card updates, or accessing a project page. It also explains that the returned link should be sent to the user and that a fresh call is needed after expiry, providing clear contextual usage 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