Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
codebugs

codebugs

by faxik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

blockers_check

Check which items are actionable by verifying blockers are satisfied. Returns fully unblocked, partially unblocked, and overdue date triggers for prioritization.

Instructions

Scan for currently actionable items — items whose blockers are all satisfied.

Returns actionable items (all blockers met), partially unblocked items (some blockers met), and overdue date triggers.

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": "blockers_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It frames the operation as a non-mutating scan and explicitly describes what is returned: actionable items, partially unblocked items, and overdue date triggers. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter check tool the key behavior is well conveyed.

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 description is short and front-loads the core scanning purpose, then adds the useful return categories. There is minor redundancy in defining actionable items twice, but no wasted sentences.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool scans and what classes of results it returns. The main missing piece is explicit guidance about when to use this tool over the sibling blocker query/resolution tools.

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?

The input schema is empty and the tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Per the rubric, zero parameters receive a baseline of 4.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Scan') and resource ('currently actionable items — items whose blockers are all satisfied'), and it names the return categories. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling blockers_query, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Scan for currently actionable items' implies the intended use case, and the returned categories add context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as blockers_query or blockers_resolve.

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