Skip to main content
Glama

Keelen

by io.github.jamie7893

verify_email

Redeem the emailed 6-digit code for a reveal-once workspace API key.

UNAUTHENTICATED. `email` + `code` must match a code issued by signup(email)
within the last 15 minutes (5 attempts max). The returned `api_key` is shown
exactly ONCE — store it ONLY in the MCP client config
("Authorization: Bearer <api_key>"), NEVER in a repo or a file you might
commit. Then reconnect this server with the header set and call
get_onboarding_status(). An invalid/expired/consumed code returns a uniform
error — call signup(email) for a fresh one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYes
emailYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation, but the description adds substantial context: the key is shown exactly once, there is a 5-attempt maximum, a 15-minute expiration, a uniform error response, and explicit storage security guidance. No contradiction with annotations.

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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, authentication context, attempt/expiry constraints, one-time key warning, and recovery path. The first sentence is the clear summary and all follow-up details are actionable.

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?

Given the tool's authentication role, the description covers prerequisites (code from signup), constraints (15 minutes, 5 attempts, one-time reveal), postconditions (store in MCP client config, reconnect), and failure handling. With an output schema present for return value details, this is fully complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full semantic burden. It connects `email` and `code` to the signup flow, specifies the code is 6-digit, and explains the match requirement. It does not detail format validation for email, but the relationship to signup(email) provides sufficient meaning.

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 opening sentence 'Redeem the emailed 6-digit code for a reveal-once workspace API key' uses a specific verb ('redeem'), names the resource (emailed code, API key), and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like signup (which issues the code) and get_onboarding_status (which follows authentication).

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('UNAUTHENTICATED', code issued by signup within 15 minutes), gives an alternative ('call signup(email) for a fresh one' on invalid/expired/consumed codes), and provides the next step ('Then reconnect... call get_onboarding_status()').

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