Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
kernl

kernl

by fastslack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

kernel_kernl_bugs_list

List Kernl's own bug reports filed by the chief or operator, ordered by newest activity first, with optional filtering by status such as new, published, fixed, or dismissed.

Instructions

List Kernl's own bug reports (filed by the chief or the operator), newest activity first.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "kernel_kernl_bugs_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNo
__caller_agent_idNo[internal] injected by the agent executor.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the sort order ('newest activity first') plus the provenance of the records. It says nothing about volume, pagination, result limits, or read-only safety, which matter for an unbounded list call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource, scope, and ordering; nothing is redundant or padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and ordering adequately. It leaves out the status filter and any expectation about result size, which are the two things an agent would most want before calling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50% and the description never mentions that results can be filtered by status, even though the schema exposes a four-value status enum with no explanation of its own. The only described parameter is the internal __caller_agent_id, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap on the one user-facing parameter.

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 description gives a specific verb and resource ('List Kernl's own bug reports') and narrows scope with 'filed by the chief or the operator', which separates it from a generic bug-filing sibling like kernel_kernl_bug_report. It stops short of naming an alternative tool explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

The parenthetical about who files these reports implies when this list is the right one (Kernl's internal bug tracker rather than anything else), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The agent must infer usage from scope wording alone.

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