next_to_try
Choose a project (or specified kind) with fewest runs, excluding your reports and receipts today when authenticated. Stay within existing permissions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| api_key | No |
notslop
by me.notslop
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and return behavior. It mentions an exclusion (reports/receipts today) and a permission constraint, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns (e.g., project ID), or what happens when no project qualifies. This is insufficient for a tool with no output schema.
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 short, two sentences, and front-loads the primary purpose. It wastes no words but could be structured slightly better by separating the exclusion and permission notes. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what the tool returns (likely a project identifier), how to handle the absence of qualifying projects, or how api_key is used. The exclusion logic is described but the overall usage context is missing.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It partially covers 'kind' via 'specified kind' but does not explain the 'api_key' parameter at all, despite mentioning 'authenticated'. The api_key parameter is left entirely to the schema, which only gives a maxLength, not purpose.
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 ('Choose') and resource ('project' or kind) with a clear selection criterion (fewest runs). It includes an exclusion clause, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_needs_runs or top_tools, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The note 'Stay within existing permissions' is a constraint, not a usage guideline. It does not mention any other tools or conditions for choosing this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clear lifecycle boundaries: start_run, close_run, and report_run are distinct stages, while register_agent, lookup_tool, and top_tools serve separate purposes. The main ambiguity is between list_needs_runs and next_to_try, both of which surface projects with the fewest runs and could be confused for one another.
Naming Consistency4/5
The majority of tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern: start_run, close_run, report_run, register_agent, lookup_tool, and list_needs_runs. Two names deviate: next_to_try is a noun phrase rather than an imperative, and top_tools omits a verb, but the overall style is still readable and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
Eight tools is a well-scoped count for this domain, covering registration, run lifecycle, lookup, prioritization, and statistics. Each tool contributes a distinct operation without the set feeling bloated or artificially thin.
Completeness4/5
The core workflow is well covered: register, start, close, report, lookup, and prioritize. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit way to list open receipts or unclosed runs, which could make it harder for an agent to know what it still needs to close.