Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Keelen

by io.github.jamie7893
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Requeue Task for Review

requeue_for_review
Destructive

Return one blocked task's existing pull request to normal review.

Requires a personal OAuth connection of an active workspace owner;
workspace keys are refused. Pass the task id (not an escalation id), the
PR's exact 40-character head SHA, a reason (1-2000 characters) and a
request_id you choose (1-128 of letters, digits, `.`, `:`, `_`, `-`). The
task's own open keelen/iter-* PR must be green and cleanly mergeable at
that head, and its latest DEV run must have verified that head. Status
becomes done (implementation awaiting review), never delivered. Review,
CI, acceptance and merge gates still apply; no retry starts and no budget
resets. The same request_id and arguments replay the stored receipt. A
refusal returns ok=false, reason review_requeue_refused, a stable
cause_code and a fixed message.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>",
      "expected_head_sha": "<expected_head_sha>",
      "reason": "<reason>",
      "request_id": "<request_id>"
    },
    "name": "requeue_for_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonYes
task_idYes
request_idYes
expected_head_shaYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: states OAuth personal-connection requirement, refuses workspace keys, specifies resulting status (done, never delivered), that gates still apply, no retry and no budget reset, and the exact refusal shape (ok=false, review_requeue_refused, cause_code). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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-loads the core action, then preconditions, then idempotency and refusal behavior. Information-dense with little waste, though the parameter enumeration is packed tightly into one long sentence.

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 destructive, gated mutation with four required params and an output schema, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, idempotency, and error contract. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates: task_id must not be an escalation id, expected_head_sha is the exact 40-character head SHA, reason is 1-2000 characters, and request_id is 1-128 chars from a stated charset. Each parameter gains meaning absent 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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Return one blocked task's existing pull request to normal review.' An agent immediately grasps it acts on an existing PR, not a new run, which cleanly separates it from siblings like retry_blocked_task or replan_task.

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?

Gives strong preconditions for use (blocked task, own open PR, green/cleanly mergeable, verified DEV run) and rules out retry/budget-reset semantics. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool to use instead, so it stops short of a 5.

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
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.

Resources