Skip to main content
Glama
duckAsteroid

brindley

by duckAsteroid
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

complete

Mark an initiative (ticket/issue) as done and close it, requiring updated doc paths or a none reason, then report newly ready initiatives and reached milestones.

Instructions

Mark an initiative (ticket/issue) done — "close" it. docs_impact is required: the project doc paths updated in this change, or "none: ". Reports which initiatives became ready, and any milestone it reaches (milestones).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refYesInitiative (ticket/issue): "collection#n" (e.g. "lgm#22"), a bare number, or a path.
collectionNo
docs_impactNoProject doc paths updated in this change, relative to the repository root (bare paths, no notes) — not initiative files; or "none: <reason>". Required, except for spikes (defaults to none).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv2.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / docs_impact / description
      Added value: +"Project doc paths updated in this change, relative to the repository root (bare paths, no notes) — not initiative files; or \"none: <reason>\". Required, except for spikes (defaults to none)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / ref / description
      Previous value: -"Initiative: \"collection#n\", a bare number, or a path."New value: +"Initiative (ticket/issue): \"collection#n\" (e.g. \"lgm#22\"), a bare number, or a path."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "ref",
-  "docs_impact"
-]New value: +[
+  "ref"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two side effects (reports initiatives that became ready and any milestone reached) and the required docs_impact obligation, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or failure modes for a mutation tool.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the requirement emphasized early. Every clause earns its place; only minor polish would push it higher.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key inputs' obligation and describes the observable results (ready initiatives, milestones). It stops just short of permission/error context but is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 67%, so ref and docs_impact are largely documented already. The description reinforces that docs_impact is required and accepts 'none: <reason>', but the 'collection' parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Mark an initiative (ticket/issue) done — "close" it.' The parenthetical clarifies the domain object, which helps disambiguate from generic siblings. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby 'set_status' or 'update' siblings.

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?

Implied usage is clear (finishing an initiative) and it adds a real conditional rule — docs_impact is required except for spikes. But it gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance relative to set_status, batch_update, or update, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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