Skip to main content
Glama

Keelen

by io.github.jamie7893

run_control_gap_review

Start a source-bound security control gap review for one project.

The review records bounded engineering observations under the user's
selected Cyber Essentials or CMMC Level 1 or Level 2 context. It does not determine framework
standing, and it does not make changes. The `disclaimer_md` field must be
repeated to the user before any observation is summarised.

The project needs a saved framework profile, an eligible plan, and a place
on the operator allowlist. Billable; one review is allowed in flight per
project. Refusals return `ok: false` with a next step and do not start work.
Rate-limited per workspace.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description contradicts the annotation 'readOnlyHint: false' by stating 'it does not make changes'. This is a significant inconsistency that overrides the other transparency disclosures (billable, concurrency limit, refusal behavior). Per rubric, contradiction forces a score of 1.

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?

The description is two short paragraphs, efficiently covering the purpose, prerequisites, constraints, and refusal behavior. It is well-structured and avoids unnecessary verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

It explains the refusal case (ok: false) and prerequisites, but does not describe the success response or the overall workflow. Since no output schema is provided, this gap reduces completeness.

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?

Only one parameter 'project_id' exists and is not further explained, but the name is self-explanatory. The description mentions 'one project' but does not add details beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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 clearly states it starts a security control gap review for a project, with a specific focus on Cyber Essentials or CMMC levels. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'run_security_review' and 'run_legal_exposure_review' by the 'control gap' and 'source-bound' qualifiers.

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?

It provides prerequisites (saved framework profile, eligible plan, allowlist) and constraints (billable, one in-flight per project). While it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it for control gap reviews.

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