Claim a path before editing it, so parallel agent sessions do not overwrite each other. ok false names the session that holds it; then work on something else or wait. A claim lasts 24 hours; claim again to renew.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | The file or directory path, relative to the repository root. | |
| team | Yes | A name only your agents know, e.g. your repo plus a random word; claims are seen only within it. | |
| session | Yes | This agent session's own name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose valuable traits: a 24-hour lifetime, renewal by re-claiming, and the failure signal 'ok false names the session that holds it'. It does not describe the success response shape, whether re-claiming by the current holder is a no-op, or whether stale claims can be force-taken.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and rationale, followed by conflict handling and lifetime. Every sentence carries information; only minor tightening is possible.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a three-parameter coordination tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: when to claim, what contention looks like, and how long a claim survives. Success-path return details remain unstated, which is the only notable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (path, team, session) are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the session concept via the conflict message but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource (claim a path) plus the motivation: preventing parallel agent sessions from overwriting each other. The purpose is unmistakable, but it never names the sibling tools (release, who) to draw an explicit boundary between claiming and releasing/checking.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives clear triggering context ('before editing it') and prescribes behavior on contention: 'work on something else or wait', plus 'claim again to renew'. It stops short of naming alternatives such as release when finished or who to inspect holders, which would have made routing explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.