Skip to main content
Glama

Keelen

by io.github.jamie7893

rearm_roadmap_item

DestructiveIdempotent

Run the dashboard's idempotent same-item dependency re-arm.

Pass an ``expand_produced_nothing`` or ``roadmap_item_parked`` escalation
id. Keelen verifies delivered structural prerequisites, grants one bounded
expand retry, preserves the roadmap item id and ``depends_on_item_ids``, and
resolves the matching cards in one transaction.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
escalation_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses what is preserved, what is granted, what is verified, and that the operation is transactional. It also confirms the idempotency annotation by calling itself idempotent. This does not contradict destructiveHint because it describes a careful mutation that resolves cards while preserving key fields.

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?

Two compact sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and supporting behavioral details in the second sentence. Every phrase adds value, and the code-formatted escalation types and field names improve scannability.

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 one-parameter idempotent tool with an output schema, the description covers input type, verification, retry grant, preservation guarantees, and transactionality. It does not describe error cases or the exact return payload, but the output schema fills part of that gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by defining the valid escalation-id categories for the single parameter. It makes clear the input must be either an 'expand_produced_nothing' or 'roadmap_item_parked' escalation id, which is essential semantic information not present in the schema.

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 names a specific action (re-arm), resource (same roadmap item dependency), and the required trigger (an escalation id). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like resolve_escalation by explaining the actual re-arm behavior: verifying prerequisites, granting one retry, preserving dependencies, and resolving cards.

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 which escalation types are valid inputs: 'expand_produced_nothing' or 'roadmap_item_parked'. This gives a clear condition for when the tool applies, though it does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it.

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