Skip to main content
Glama
RogueAlg0

taken

by RogueAlg0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

scan_repo

Scan a repository's open issues and rank them GO, CAUTION, or TAKEN so agents can pick the safest issues to volunteer for.

Instructions

Scan a repository's open issues and recommend the GO ones.

Results are ordered GO first, then CAUTION, then TAKEN, so the best candidates to volunteer for come first. recommendations lists just the GO targets; summary counts each verdict. Each result carries friendly_labels (first-time-contributor labels on the issue) and welcoming (repo-level signs contributions are welcome), so an agent can prefer the safest issues to adopt.

Error payloads carry error plus error_code: RateLimitError -> rate_limited, NotFoundError -> not_found, HTTP 401/CLI authentication failures -> auth_failed, subprocess timeouts -> timeout, other TakenError failures -> unknown.

Args: owner: repository owner login repo: repository name limit: max open issues to check (default 20) label: only consider open issues carrying this label me: your GitHub login; your own comments are ignored in the claimant scan pr_idle_days: stale-claim decay threshold for idle linked PRs (default 90) claim_silence_days: stale-claim decay threshold for simple issues (default 7) claim_silence_complex_days: stale-claim decay threshold for complex issues (default 14)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
meNoYour GitHub login; your own comments are ignored. Default: none.
repoYes
labelNoOnly consider open issues carrying this label. Default: no label filter.
limitNoMax open issues to check. Default: 20.
ownerYes
pr_idle_daysNoStale-claim decay: days of linked-PR inactivity before TAKEN weakens to CAUTION. Default: 90.
claim_silence_daysNoStale-claim decay: days one claim blocks as CAUTION on a simple issue; the clock resets on claimant activity. Default: 7.
claim_silence_complex_daysNoStale-claim decay: days one claim blocks as CAUTION on a complex issue. Default: 14.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.9.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / claim_silence_complex_days
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Stale-claim decay: days one claim blocks as CAUTION on a complex issue. Default: 14.",
+  "title": "Claim Silence Complex Days"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / claim_silence_days
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Stale-claim decay: days one claim blocks as CAUTION on a simple issue; the clock resets on claimant activity. Default: 7.",
+  "title": "Claim Silence Days"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / minimum
      Added value: +0
    • addedInput schema / properties / pr_idle_days
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Stale-claim decay: days of linked-PR inactivity before TAKEN weakens to CAUTION. Default: 90.",
+  "title": "Pr Idle Days"
+}
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.7.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / label / description
      Added value: +"Only consider open issues carrying this label. Default: no label filter."
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Max open issues to check. Default: 20."
    • addedInput schema / properties / me / description
      Added value: +"Your GitHub login; your own comments are ignored. Default: none."
  3. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it documents result ordering (GO/CAUTION/TAKEN), the meaning of `recommendations` and `summary`, the semantics of `friendly_labels` and `welcoming`, and a full error-code mapping (rate_limited, not_found, auth_failed, timeout, unknown). The auth_failed mapping implicitly signals authentication requirements, though permissions and rate-limit behavior themselves are not spelled out.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded, and the results and error sections are high-value content. The trailing Args block duplicates the schema descriptions with only slight added nuance, which is the one bit of low-yield text, but the description is otherwise tight and well-ordered.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return shape — and it does, covering ordering, `recommendations`, `summary`, `friendly_labels`, `welcoming`, and the error payload contract. For an 8-parameter, no-annotation tool it is close to complete; only explicit auth/permission prerequisites are 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 75% and the description documents all eight arguments, adding meaning beyond the schema in places (e.g. `me` scopes the claimant scan, `pr_idle_days` and the two silence thresholds are framed as stale-claim decay knobs). The Args block largely restates the schema, so the added value is modest but real.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Scan a repository's open issues') plus the outcome ('recommend the GO ones'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, contrast itself with the siblings check_issue and discover_candidates, so routing between them is left to inference.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by 'the best candidates to volunteer for come first' and 'prefer the safest issues to adopt', which signals the contribute-to-a-repo scenario. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the sibling tools, so an agent must guess how this differs from check_issue or discover_candidates.

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