Skip to main content
Glama

busabase

by com.busabase
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Merge one or more approved change requests

change_request_merge
Destructive

Merge one or more approved change requests

This records a HUMAN decision. Never call it unless the user explicitly asked for this specific verdict on these specific change requests. Summarising a change request for the user is not permission to approve it. Merging is irreversible — it writes the proposed changes into the canonical data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
playbookNoOptional. The playbook you are following, as `kind:nodeId[:key]` from playbooks_search (e.g. `prompt:nod_123:log-visit`). Recorded on the change request so the person can see which playbook produced it.
targetSpaceIdNoBusabase space id. Call auth_verify first and ask the user which space to use when more than one is returned.
changeRequestIdsYesChange request ids to merge. One id is fine; up to 100 per call.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / playbook
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. The playbook you are following, as `kind:nodeId[:key]` from playbooks_search (e.g. `prompt:nod_123:log-visit`). Recorded on the change request so the person can see which playbook produced it.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description adds that merging is 'irreversible' and that it 'writes the proposed changes into the canonical data.' This tells the agent exactly what side effects occur, which is substantial behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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?

The description is compact: a one-line core action followed by a focused safety warning. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important contextual constraint (human-approval requirement) is placed prominently.

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 destructive merge tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational context: human decision, approval gating, irreversibility, and the canonical-data effect. The schema covers targetSpaceId behavior. A minor gap is that it does not describe the post-merge state of the change request records, but this is not essential for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but it also does not need to; the schema already documents changeRequestIds, targetSpaceId, and playbook clearly.

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 states a specific action ('Merge') and resource ('one or more approved change requests'), and further clarifies the effect by saying it 'writes the proposed changes into the canonical data.' It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the 'approved change requests' scope clearly separates it from review, close, query, and creation tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an explicit when-not rule: 'Never call it unless the user explicitly asked for this specific verdict on these specific change requests.' It also warns that summarizing a change request is not permission to approve it, which is critical safety guidance for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool.

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

All busabase toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources