Skip to main content
Glama

immobilier

by fr.synergieloc
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Merge concurrent edits of a building model

cao_fusionner_versions
Read-only

WHEN two people or agents changed the same house design in parallel, starting from the same version, and both changes must be kept (like synchronising with a Revit central model). Three-way merge, element by element and field by field: a change made on one side goes through; the same field changed differently on both sides, or an element deleted on one side and modified on the other, is returned as a conflict, never silently overwritten. An opening stays on its own wall even if the other side deleted a wall before it. Pass resolutions {conflict id: central | local} to settle conflicts. Elements keep a persistent identity (ifc_guid, equal to their IFC GlobalId, or your own external_id). Pass empreinte_base (SHA-256 of the base you loaded) to refuse a merge on another base; the answer gives the SHA-256 of the three versions and of the result.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseYesThe version both sides started from.
localeYesYour changed copy, started from `base`.
centralYesThe shared version as it is now (changed by others).
resolutionsNoOptional: for each conflict id returned by a first call, "central" or "local".
empreinte_baseNoOptional: sha256 of the base as you loaded it (sorted JSON, compact separators) — a different base is refused (409).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / empreinte_base
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: sha256 of the base as you loaded it (sorted JSON, compact separators) — a different base is refused (409).",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare a safe read profile; the description adds substantial behavior: conflicts are returned, never silently overwritten; a delete-vs-modify on the same element is flagged; openings survive a wall deletion; elements keep persistent identity (ifc_guid / external_id); a base hash mismatch is refused with 409. This is far beyond what readOnlyHint/destructiveHint convey.

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 WHEN condition and dense with useful detail; the wall/opening example earns its place by illustrating conflict behavior. It is long and occasionally packed with parenthetical asides, but no sentence is redundant.

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 complex three-way merge with no output schema, the description covers conflict handling, identity keys, the resolutions flow, and the integrity/error case, and notes that the answer carries SHA-256 hashes of all versions and the result. It stops short of describing the returned conflict/result structure in detail, but the essentials for a correct call are present.

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 earns more: it explains the semantics of `resolutions` ({conflict id: central | local}) and of `empreinte_base` (SHA-256 of the loaded base, mismatched base refused with 409) and clarifies the identity model for elements. It adds real meaning over the schema's terse one-liners.

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 operation — a three-way, element-by-element and field-by-field merge of concurrent edits to the same house design — which clearly separates it from siblings like cao_comparer_versions (diff) and cao_conflits_ifc (conflict listing). The 'what' arrives after a long WHEN clause, and the sibling alternatives are implied rather than named, so it falls short of a 5.

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 opening WHEN clause gives concrete triggering conditions ('two people or agents changed the same house design in parallel, starting from the same version, and both changes must be kept') plus an analogy (Revit central model sync). It never states when NOT to use it or points to cao_comparer_versions/cao_conflits_ifc as the lighter-weight alternatives.

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

All immobilier 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