Skip to main content
Glama

Keelen

by io.github.jamie7893

resolve_platform_policy_conflict

DestructiveIdempotent

Resolve a platform-policy dead-end with a structured plan decision.

``decision`` is one of ``reuse_existing_evidence``, ``split_task``,
``raise_project_cap``, or ``remove_scenario``. ``raise_project_cap`` also
requires ``project_cap`` (6..24). The decision becomes a new task-plan
section; the same task lineage is requeued before the escalation resolves.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
decisionYes
decision_mdYes
project_capNo
escalation_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent, and the description adds real behavioral context: the decision becomes a task-plan section and the task lineage is requeued before the escalation resolves. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not fully detail what 'remove_scenario' destructively changes.

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 compact, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. The code-formatted decision values and conditional requirement are easy to scan, with no filler or repetition.

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 4-parameter tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the decision options, the conditional cap, and the post-decision behavior. The main missing pieces are the meaning of decision_md and explicit routing guidance, but an agent can invoke the tool correctly with what is provided.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters itself. It effectively documents the decision enum and the conditional project_cap range (6..24), but it leaves escalation_id and decision_md unexplained, so compensation is only partial.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Resolve'), a specific resource ('platform-policy dead-end'), and a structured decision mechanism. It is clear and distinguishable in practice, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling resolve_escalation, so it stops short of 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?

The usage context is implied by 'platform-policy dead-end' and the decision-oriented behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like resolve_escalation. It gives operational context without naming alternatives or exclusions.

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