Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
DevFlow MCP Server

DevFlow MCP Server

by FaerberK
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

knowledge_draft_list

List a project's knowledge drafts by pending, accepted, or rejected status to check existing suggestions before proposing new drafts and avoid duplicates.

Instructions

List knowledge drafts for a project. Optional status filter (pending | accepted | rejected). Useful before proposing new drafts — check what is already queued so you don't duplicate your own suggestions.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "knowledge_draft_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNo
projectIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv4.35.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only states basic functionality (list drafts with optional filter) but does not disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, return format, or side effects. As a read operation, minimal disclosure is acceptable, but more detail would help.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action, and contains no extraneous words. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential use case. However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., what fields are in each draft) and pagination, which would improve completeness.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the status filter's purpose and usage context. However, it does not explain the projectId parameter's format or necessity, leaving some ambiguity.

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 'List knowledge drafts for a project' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like knowledge_draft_create, knowledge_draft_accept by focusing on listing existing drafts.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly advises using this tool before proposing new drafts to avoid duplicates, providing clear contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other listing tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools