Collide MCP

pending_reconciliations

When a response says two agents' work collides (reconciliations_pending): claim the open collisions, with both sides' intents, changed lines and notes, to merge them. Merge by keeping both sides' work; never by deleting either. After the merge passes the tests, call again with resolve=[id]. Returns the claimed reconciliations and how many stay open.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo_id`	Yes	The repository id, e.g. github.com/org/repo (repo_id in .collide/config.json).
`resolve`	No	Ids of reconciliations you have merged and verified.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 27, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / repo_id / description

Added value: +"The repository id, e.g. github.com/org/repo (repo_id in .collide/config.json)."

addedInput schema / properties / resolve / description

Added value: +"Ids of reconciliations you have merged and verified."

Changed8 schema fields changedSep 18, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / repo_id / description

Removed value: -"Repository id — the git remote (e.g. github.com/acme/api) or a bare folder name; a #branch suffix scopes to that branch."

removedInput schema / properties / repo_id / title
```
Removed value: -"Repo Id"
```

removedInput schema / properties / resolve / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "items": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

removedInput schema / properties / resolve / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
addedInput schema / properties / resolve / items
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
removedInput schema / properties / resolve / title
```
Removed value: -"Resolve"
```
addedInput schema / properties / resolve / type
```
Added value: +"array"
```

removedInput schema / title

Removed value: -"pending_reconciliationsArguments"

First observedSep 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is partly covered, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the keep-both-sides merge rule, the explicit prohibition on deleting, and the two-phase claim-then-resolve flow. It does not describe what state persists or error conditions.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the action, merge rule, and second-call pattern, ending with return values. Dense but every clause carries instruction; no filler 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating what is returned (claimed reconciliations and remaining open count). The two-mode contract and merge constraint are covered; only edge cases and failure behavior are absent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds operational meaning by showing resolve=[id] is only supplied on the second call after a verified merge, which the schema alone does not convey. repo_id semantics are left to its schema description.

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 names a specific resource (open reconciliations/collisions) and verb (claim, then resolve), and reveals that the tool has two modes rather than just listing pending items as its name suggests. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast against sibling tools like claim or declare_intent.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger (when a response reports reconciliations_pending), prescribes the merge policy (keep both sides, never delete either), and specifies the follow-up call (resolve=[id] after tests pass). Both invocation modes and their ordering are spelled out.

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

All Collide MCP tools Inspect

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

Need Help?