Skip to main content
Glama

Keelen

by io.github.jamie7893

run_legal_exposure_review

Find where a codebase creates legal exposure (privacy, consent, data handling).

Spawns a one-shot review machine that reads the checkout offline and maps
what the code DOES onto commonly cited legal obligations, filtered by the
project's saved compliance profile (jurisdictions plus eleven product
facts). Findings land on the project's Legal page for a human to triage,
and you read them with get_legal_exposure_findings. No change is ever
applied automatically.

THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND IT IS NOT A LEGAL CLEARANCE. The result
carries a `disclaimer_md` field: repeat it to the user before you summarise
anything. The review is not exhaustive, so an empty result is never proof
that anything is in order.

Requires a saved compliance profile (409-shaped refusal without one),
a plan that carries the feature, and the project on the operator allowlist.
Billable; one review in flight per project. Every refusal comes back as
`ok: false` with an actionable `next_step`, and starts nothing.
Rate-limited per workspace.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false are partially contradicted by the text 'No change is ever applied automatically' and 'one-shot review' - the tool creates review artifacts but does not mutate code, so the readOnly flag is misleading though not a direct contradiction.

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 long but dense: every sentence behooves the safety- and legal-critical subject matter; the disclaimer, concurrency, billing, and permit requirements are all condensed into compact prose. The paragraph structure is preserved along with the front-loaded core purpose.

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 complex tool with schema, annotations, output schema, and heavy operational context, the description covers the prerequisites, side effects, billing/permissions, failure mode, and result access method. Minor gap: no return value description but output schema makes it less relevant.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With one param (project_id) and 0% schema_description_coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the required format, prerequisite profile, or project_id semantics but it does not go beyond the name and the requirement. The agent would need to infer project_id meaning entirely from other contexts.

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 specific verb+resource ('find where a codebase creates legal exposure') and details the mapping to legal obligations, making the primary purpose unmistakable and distinct from generic review tools.

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?

Provides concrete prerequisites (saved compliance profile, project on allowlist, feature flag), billing/concurrency caveats, and disclaimers. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison, but the caveats establish 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