recall-kit

project_close

Resolve a blocker or complete a next step or follow-up by slug and item ID, keeping project status current across sessions.

Instructions

Resolve a blocker (b1), complete a next step (n1) or a follow-up (f1).

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>",
      "item_id": "<item_id>"
    },
    "name": "project_close"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes
`item_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a mutating operation. It does not state whether closing is reversible, whether it requires ownership or permissions, what state changes occur to the item or the project, or whether resolving a blocker cascades to dependent items.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the enumerated target types and their ID formats. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Placeholder.

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 0%, and the description does add genuinely useful meaning for item_id by showing the expected b1/n1/f1 identifier convention, which the schema's bare 'Item Id' does not convey. However, the 'slug' parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of two required parameters undocumented everywhere.

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 verb pair 'resolve/complete' plus the three target objects (blocker b1, next step n1, follow-up f1) tells an agent concretely what the tool does. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings such as project_update or project_decide, so the boundary must be inferred from the ID prefixes.

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?

Scope is implied by the item-type prefixes, which suggests this tool is only for b/n/f items and that other item types go elsewhere. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternative such as project_update, and no note on preconditions (does the item need to be open, assigned, etc.).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server