Skip to main content
Glama

Keelen

by io.github.jamie7893

reorder_roadmap

Idempotent

Change what gets built first.

`ordered_ids` is the desired front-to-back order of queued roadmap-item ids
(get them from list_roadmap). The first id becomes the highest priority —
the cadence expands the lowest-priority_int queued item next. Horizon pins
still dominate: a pinned-later item stays at the back and a pinned-now item
at the front, regardless of position in `ordered_ids`. Ids that are unknown
or no longer queued are skipped; duplicates are rejected. Returns {updated,
queue, next_step}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
ordered_idsYes

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 non-obvious behaviors beyond annotations: horizon pins override `ordered_ids`, unknown/non-queued ids are skipped, duplicates are rejected, and the response shape is {updated, queue, next_step}. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations' idempotent/non-destructive flags.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary up front, followed by focused details on ordering semantics, pin interactions, edge cases, and return value. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the essential behavioral rules: priority interpretation, horizon pin precedence, ignored unknown ids, duplicate rejection, and result format. The output schema covers return structure, so the `returns` mention is a helpful bonus rather than a 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains `ordered_ids`: desired front-to-back order, first id being highest priority, and handling of unknown/duplicate ids. `project_id` is not elaborated, but it is a simple identifier and the required usage is obvious from 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 opens with a clear statement of what the tool does ('Change what gets built first') and specifies the resource: the queue of roadmap items. It clearly distinguishes reordering from sibling tools like list_roadmap, cancel_roadmap_item, and clear_horizon_pin.

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 context for when to use this tool: to set the priority order of queued roadmap items, with guidance that ids come from list_roadmap. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the full 'when-not/alternatives' bar.

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