SKEIN

skein_close_many

Close many issues in one round-trip. Each item is processed independently in its own SERIALIZABLE transaction; on row-level failure (version_conflict, locked_by_other, pinned_no_force, ...) the rest of the batch still runs. Inspect results[i].ok per row to find the failures and results[i].error.code to branch on the cause. Result rows preserve input order. A row returning serialization_retry rolled back its close without a version change; resend that row unchanged.

Caps at 100 items per call (matches the REST bulk endpoint). For >100 issues, split client-side. force=true needs force_unlock on each row's project and bypasses lock + version + pinned predicates uniformly across all rows. Per-row reason is required (non-empty after trim) — agents typically pass the same string in every item. Each item may carry an optional commits[] (max 10). Re-close is NOT idempotent — it overwrites closed_reason / closed_at per item; to add commits to already-closed issues use skein_commits_attach per issue. closeOutcome / closeTarget are per item, as on skein_close. closeOutcome is required when transitioning to closed; repeating a close without it preserves the previous outcome. Each row answers closeOutcome, plus closeLink when it named a target.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "items": "<items>"
    },
    "name": "skein_close_many"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`force`	No	Bypass lock + version + pinned predicates across the entire batch. Needs force_unlock on each row's project (project owner, space owner, instance admin); a row without it fails with `force_unlock_forbidden`. Default: false.
`items`	Yes	Per-row close requests. Min 1, max 100. Order is preserved in results[].

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing per-row SERIALIZABLE transactions, independent row processing, partial-failure semantics, the error codes to branch on (version_conflict, locked_by_other, pinned_no_force, force_unlock_forbidden), result ordering, and the serialization_retry resend rule. The only shortfall is that it never notes this mutates closed_reason/closed_at irreversibly beyond the idempotency caveat, which it does partially cover.

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?

Front-loads the batch/partial-failure behavior before the limits and per-field notes, which is the right order. It loses a point for mild redundancy, restating the 100-item cap twice and repeating coverage that the schema's maxItems already declares.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the results[] shape (results[i].ok, results[i].error.code), order preservation, and the per-row echo of closeOutcome and closeLink. An agent has everything needed to invoke it and interpret failures.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real cross-cutting meaning: force requires force_unlock on each row's project and applies uniformly, reason must be non-empty after trim and is usually duplicated per row, commits are capped at 10, and closeOutcome is required on a transition to closed but omitted on repeat closes. That is meaningful guidance the schema alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Close many issues in one round-trip") plus the distinguishing batch semantics. It also anchors itself against the single-item sibling by saying closeOutcome/closeTarget are "per item, as on skein_close", so an agent can tell the two apart immediately.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: use this for batches up to 100, split client-side beyond that, and use skein_commits_attach per issue when adding commits to already-closed issues. It also warns that re-close is not idempotent, which is a clear when-not condition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SKEIN tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.