Skip to main content
Glama
wmmg101

kilter-mcp

by wmmg101
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

kilter_get_projects

Read-only

Find climbs you have attempted but not topped at a given wall angle. Filter by angle to see what to work on next.

Instructions

Return the user's projects: climbs attempted but never topped at that wall angle.

Use when the user asks what they are working on, unfinished climbs, or what to try next. A climb is a project per (climb, angle); sending it at another angle does not remove it. Sorted by most recently tried, then most attempts. Optional angle filter.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
angleNoWall angle in degrees (e.g. 20, 30, 40). Omit for all angles.
limitNoMaximum number of items to return.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / default
      Previous value: -50New value: +25
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.2.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / angle / description
      Added value: +"Wall angle in degrees (e.g. 20, 30, 40). Omit for all angles."
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "integer"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "minimum": 1,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"Maximum number of items to return."
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the definition of a project per (climb, angle), the sorting order ('most recently tried, then most attempts'), and the optional angle filter. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three sentences: the first states purpose, the second gives usage, the third adds behavioral nuance and sorting. Everything is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's definition, usage triggers, sorting behavior, angle scoping, and filter option. With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call it 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 description coverage is 100% and already explains the angle and limit parameters, including defaults and semantics. The description adds little beyond restating 'Optional angle filter,' which is redundant. The (climb, angle) definition provides indirect context but does not add parameter-level detail not already in the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('user's projects') and defines what a project is ('climbs attempted but never topped at that wall angle'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like sends or logs. It also explains the (climb, angle) granularity, removing ambiguity about what constitutes a project.

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 explicitly lists the use cases ('what they are working on, unfinished climbs, or what to try next'), which tells the agent when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent can route correctly among the siblings.

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