Skip to main content
Glama
JeanFrancoisGagne

crapkit

by JeanFrancoisGagne
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Open queue claims

list_claims
Read-onlyIdempotent

List open claims on queue items, oldest first, to explain an empty or skipped get_next_item result and inspect pending work.

Instructions

Lists open claims on queue items, oldest first. Use it when get_next_item answers empty or skipped_claimed above 0, and use get_function_brief to see one function's own attempts. No tool here writes a claim: the CLI releases a stale one with crapkit claims release PATH NAME, and verify closes one at the ceiling. repo may be any directory under the checkout, since the server walks up to the nearest crapkit.toml. No crapkit.toml above it answers an init pointer, and one with no snapshot store yet a coverage pointer, both as isError true.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoNopath to the scored repo's root (default: the repo the server was started in); a leading ~ is the home directory

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
openNonumber of open claims
claimsNoopen claims, oldest first
schemaNopayload schema version, 1
truncatedNopresent only when the whole answer was longer than one tool result the server sends (7,500 characters): each list, string or object field it cut, at any depth, keeps its start, and full is the CLI command that prints the whole answer

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.8.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / repo / description
      Previous value: -"path to the scored repo's root (default: the repo the server was started in)"New value: +"path to the scored repo's root (default: the repo the server was started in); a leading ~ is the home directory"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / truncated
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "present only when the whole answer was longer than one tool result the server sends (7,500 characters): each list, string or object field it cut, at any depth, keeps its start, and full is the CLI command that prints the whole answer",
+  "properties": {
+    "fields": {
+      "additionalProperties": {
+        "properties": {
+          "kept": {
+            "description": "how many the answer keeps",
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          "of": {
+            "description": "how many the whole answer has",
+            "type": "integer"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "description": "each cut field, named by its keys joined with dots (gate.breaches) -> kept and of: elements for a list, entries for an object, characters for a string",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "full": {
+      "description": "the crapkit command that prints the whole answer, spelled for the server's shell",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Addedv0.6.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the CLI-only claim release path, repo path walk-up semantics, and the two distinct isError conditions (init pointer vs coverage pointer). The 'no tool here writes a claim' line partly restates readOnlyHint, but the error and release context is real added value.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries information, but several concerns (usage, CLI release, path resolution, error cases) are packed into one dense paragraph. It is economical, if a little hard to parse on first read.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers usage, mutation model, path resolution, and failure modes. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: repo may be any directory under the checkout because the server walks up to the nearest crapkit.toml, which clarifies the accepted argument shape beyond 'path to the scored repo's root'.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (Lists), resource (open claims on queue items), and ordering (oldest first). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_next_item and get_function_brief, which are named explicitly.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition ('when get_next_item answers empty or skipped_claimed above 0') and routes to the alternative ('use get_function_brief to see one function's own attempts'). When-to-use and the relevant sibling are both spelled out.

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