Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-roadmapsh

mcp-roadmapsh

by aissablk1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

roadmap_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a specific roadmap from roadmap.sh using its slug, and select either an outline of the topic plan or the raw graph JSON.

Instructions

Get a roadmap by slug. format=outline returns a readable topic plan with node ids; format=raw returns the full graph JSON.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "roadmap_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesroadmap.sh slug, e.g. 'frontend'
formatNooutline

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive action. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that format=outline returns a readable topic plan with node ids and format=raw returns the full graph JSON, going beyond the annotations.

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 with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded ('Get a roadmap by slug'), followed by the two format options. Every word adds value.

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 read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and output formats. It does not explain potential errors or edge cases, but the annotations and simplicity make this adequate.

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 description coverage is 50% (slug has a description, format does not). The description compensates by explaining the meaning and effect of the format parameter's enum values. It does not add much for slug, but the schema already provides an example.

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 and resource: 'Get a roadmap by slug', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like roadmap_list or roadmap_search. It also differentiates two output formats, adding scope and making it unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you have a slug and need either a readable outline or raw graph JSON. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives compared to siblings, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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