Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
DevFlow MCP Server

DevFlow MCP Server

by FaerberK
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

knowledge_draft_reject

Reject a draft with reviewer notes to prevent duplicate proposals. Mark a draft as rejected so the same title is not suggested again.

Instructions

Reject a draft with optional reviewer notes. Rejected drafts are remembered — dedup will not propose the same title again.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "knowledge_draft_reject"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesDraft id (alias: draftId is also accepted)
notesNoWhy this draft was rejected

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv4.42.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Added value: +"Draft id (alias: draftId is also accepted)"
  2. First observedv4.35.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that rejected drafts are remembered and dedup avoids re-proposing, but doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or reversibility.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds key behavioral context. No wasted words.

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 simple tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers core purpose and a key behavioral effect. Lacks return value details but is fairly complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema (e.g., notes are optional). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Reject' and the resource 'a draft', and adds a behavioral note about dedup that distinguishes it from siblings like accept or create.

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?

It explains when to use (reject a draft with optional notes) and implies the dedup behavior, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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