Skip to main content
Glama

Axint

by io.github.agenticempire

axint.agent.claim

Claim files before an agent edits them so other agents do not patch the same SwiftUI/App files concurrently. Claims are local, short-lived, and stored in .axint/coordination/claims.json. Use: use before editing shared files in parallel-agent work; release claims when done. Inputs: agentId and files identify the claim; ttlMinutes bounds ownership and force overrides stale claims. Effects: writes local coordination claims under .axint/coordination; no network.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNoProject directory. Defaults to the MCP process cwd.
taskNoTask, bug, or repair pass this claim covers.
agentNoAgent lane creating the claim.
filesYesFiles to claim before editing.
formatNoOutput format. Defaults to markdown.
ttlMinutesNoClaim TTL in minutes. Defaults to 30.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
isErrorNo

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses side effects beyond annotations: 'Claims are local, short-lived, and stored in .axint/coordination/claims.json,' and 'Effects: writes local coordination claims under .axint/coordination; no network.' This adds valuable context not captured by readOnlyHint/destructiveHint.

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?

Concise and well-structured: purpose sentence, usage note, and effects. No redundancy; every sentence provides distinct information.

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?

Given the output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is complete. It covers side effects, local/network behavior, TTL, and usage context, making it sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, but the description adds meaning for key parameters: 'files identify the claim; ttlMinutes bounds ownership and force overrides stale claims.' However, it references 'agentId' while the schema parameter is 'agent', creating a minor mismatch.

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 function: 'Claim files before an agent edits them so other agents do not patch the same SwiftUI/App files concurrently.' This is a specific verb+resource with a precise purpose, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like axint.agent.release.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'use before editing shared files in parallel-agent work; release claims when done.' It also mentions the complementary release action, giving clear guidance on lifecycle.

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

All Axint 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with descriptions specifying exact use cases (e.g., axint.activate for smoke test, axint.status for version). There is minor potential overlap between axint.suggest and axint.feature, but descriptions clarify suggestion vs generation.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent hierarchical pattern: 'axint.<category>.<action>' (e.g., axint.agent.advice, axint.swift.validate). Even standalone tools like axint.compile fit the pattern. No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well above the typical 3-15 range for a well-scoped set. While the server covers a broad domain, the sheer number may overwhelm agents and reduce efficiency. A reduction or grouping would improve coherence.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full Axint development lifecycle: installation, compilation, validation, repair, upgrade, session management, and coordination. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated tool for deleting project artifacts), but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources