kill_list
Every strategy idea this platform built, tested, and rejected — with dates, verdicts, and honest reasons. Publishing failures is the credibility mechanism.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Thales
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only describes content (rejected ideas) and does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. Minimal transparency beyond data nature.
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?
Extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and add a unique value proposition ('credibility mechanism'). Every sentence earns its place with no verbosity.
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 parameterless list tool without output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. It lacks mention of ordering, filtering, or pagination, but is likely sufficient for basic use. Slightly incomplete given no contextual cues relative to siblings.
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?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage (empty schema). The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable as there are none to describe. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 clearly states the tool provides a list of rejected strategy ideas with dates, verdicts, and reasons. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'fleet_overview' or 'gate_status' by focusing on failures as a credibility mechanism.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the content alone.
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
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: fleet_overview summarizes all sleeves, sleeve_record drills into one, gate_status tracks the go-live gate, kill_list logs rejected ideas, research_journal lists documents, research_note fetches a single document, and site_guide explains the platform. The only close pair is fleet_overview vs. sleeve_record, but their scopes (global vs. single sleeve) prevent confusion.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow the same lowercase snake_case pattern with two tokens separated by an underscore (e.g., fleet_overview, gate_status, research_note). There are no mixed conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is ideal for a read-only transparency platform. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the domain without redundancy, and the count is well within the typical well-scoped 3–15 range.
Completeness5/5
The tool set fully covers its stated purpose: aggregate and per-sleeve performance, research journal and note retrieval, failure records, gate status, and self-description. There are no obvious dead ends—users can start at the overview, drill into details, and access all published documentation.