Skip to main content
Glama

Forge Engine

by app.forgeengine

resolve_rejection

Report you REVERTED a declined change (unlocks the owner's Clear). Call after realigning the build.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesExactly as get_rejections returned it
project_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • removedInput schema / properties / project_id / description
      Removed value: -"Project id (from list_projects) to act on; omit = the connector URL's project."
    • changedInput schema / properties / title / description
      Previous value: -"The declined item's title, exactly as get_rejections returned it."New value: +"Exactly as get_rejections returned it"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses the effect of unlocking the owner's Clear and the timing (after realigning). This goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation, which only indicates it is not destructive. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no unnecessary words. The structure is ideal for quick understanding.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers the action, the prerequisite timing, and the outcome. It lacks details about return values or idempotency, but given the low complexity and sibling context, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The description does not discuss parameters. The schema provides a description for 'title' but not for 'project_id'. With only 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool's action: reporting that a declined change was reverted. It also provides context by mentioning it unlocks the owner's Clear, and the verb+resource structure distinguishes it from siblings like get_rejections.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call after realigning the build', giving a clear usage condition. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though the context is clear enough.

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

All Forge Engine toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with explicit distinctions between direct actions and proposals via Inbox. The verbs and object types (system, milestone, screen, element, balance) are unique enough that no two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_system, propose_screen, update_element). Minor deviations like 'dedupe', 'search', 'next_task', and 'reorder' are single words or non-verb but remain readable and stylistically compatible.

Tool Count1/5

With 54 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical MCP scope, hitting the 'extreme mismatch' threshold. Even for a complex domain, the sheer number will overwhelm agents and degrade selection performance.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete, covering full lifecycle operations for all major entities, plus import, design generation, drift detection, status reporting, inbox handling, and rejection workflows. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.

Resources