Skip to main content
Glama

Keelen

by io.github.jamie7893

signup

Create a Keelen account (or start agent login) — emails a 6-digit code.

UNAUTHENTICATED — the only tool besides verify_email that works before a
bearer key is configured. `email` is where the code is sent. Flow:
signup(email) -> the user reads the 6-digit code from their inbox ->
verify_email(email, code) returns a reveal-once API key -> save it as this
server's `Authorization: Bearer <api_key>` header in your MCP client config
-> reconnect -> get_onboarding_status() to continue setup. The code expires
in 15 minutes; call signup again to resend. Response is uniform whether or
not the email already has an account (enumeration-safe), so signup doubles
as agent LOGIN. Rate-limited per IP and per email.

ASK THE USER for `email` in chat and WAIT for their answer before calling
this. Do NOT infer it from your client profile, the logged-in account, git
config, or any other ambient source; if you already hold a candidate, echo
it back and get an explicit yes first. Because this call doubles as LOGIN, a
guessed address signs the user in to whatever workspace owns it, and the
rest of setup then mints an API key on, and creates a project in, an account
they did not choose.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses far beyond annotations: email delivery, 15-minute code expiry, rate limits per IP and email, enumeration-safe responses, and the dual-purpose login behavior. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) are consistent and the description adds contextual safety warnings that are essential for a signup tool.

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?

Although the description is long, it is densely packed with actionable information: a clear purpose, flow, timeouts, rate limits, safety warnings, and user-interaction directives. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure front-loads the core action then builds context, making it highly scannable.

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?

The tool is complex—it doubles as login, has security and enumeration concerns, and is the entry point for the whole setup flow. The description covers all relevant aspects: authentication context, the exact email/verify/save sequence, rate limits, expiration, and the need to ask the user. Given the presence of an output schema (though not detailed here), the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to operate it correctly.

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 schema coverage at 0% (the schema only labels the parameter 'Email'), the description fully compensates by explaining that 'email' is the destination for the code and by instructing the agent on proper acquisition (ask user, never infer). It also clarifies the security implications of the parameter value, which goes well beyond 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 definitive verb and resource: 'Create a Keelen account (or start agent login) — emails a 6-digit code.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_email and get_onboarding_status, and explicitly states both the account creation and login angle.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage guidance is explicit: marks the tool as UNAUTHENTICATED and the only one (besides verify_email) that works pre-auth, then provides the full flow sequence. It also instructs the agent to ask the user for email and wait, explicitly forbidding inference from ambient sources. It names the alternative verify_email and warns against guessing due to login implications.

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