NEXUS AGI

Decide an entity merge

decide_merge_proposal

DestructiveIdempotent

Decide an entity-merge proposal (from get_merge_doubts, a duda_de_fusion attached to another tool's result, or a 'same_as' relation).

"fusionar" merges the two entities: the surviving one inherits the
other's relations, facts, episodes and aliases. Merges are reversible.
Fails if the proposal is no longer pending.

Args:
    candidate_id: The proposal's ``id``.
    decision: "fusionar" (same entity), "distintas" (different; never
        proposed again, so not for "I can't tell") or "posponer"
        (served again in 3 days; after 3 postponements it stops being
        served and both entities stay separate).
    conservar: With "fusionar", which entity survives: "a" (entity_a)
        or "b" (entity_b). Default: the one with more relations.
    por_usuario: False (default) if the agent decided on its own; True
        if this relays the user's decision. Recorded as who decided.
    razon: One sentence on why. Stored with the decision for audit.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`razon`	No
`decision`	Yes
`conservar`	No
`por_usuario`	No
`candidate_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description still adds substantial context beyond that: the surviving entity inherits relations/facts/episodes/aliases, merges are reversible, and it fails on non-pending proposals. The reversibility claim does qualify the destructive hint rather than contradict it.

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 core action before the argument breakdown, and every section earns its place. It is dense with nested parentheticals, which slightly taxes readability but does not include filler.

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?

For a destructive, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the failure condition, reversibility, default behaviors, and downstream effects of each decision. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it documents all five parameters: candidate_id, the three decision values with meanings, conservar with its default rule, por_usuario's default and recorded meaning, and razon for audit. This fully compensates for the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Decide an entity-merge proposal') and immediately names the sources it consumes (get_merge_doubts, duda_de_fusion, same_as relation). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like ratify_relation or resolve_contradiction without opening any schema.

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?

Explains where proposals originate, when the call fails ('no longer pending'), and the exact consequence of each decision option, including that 'distintas' is never proposed again and 'posponer' recurs in 3 days up to a limit. This is explicit when/when-not guidance tied to the enum choices.

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

All NEXUS AGI tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?