Skip to main content
Glama

check_active_intent

Before writing code, verify your session's active intent to ensure proper context and detect potential conflicts with team members.

Instructions

REQUIRED: Call this tool BEFORE writing any code.

Returns THIS session's current intent (intent / hasActiveIntent) if one is set. If not, ask the user to confirm intent details and then call create_and_activate_intent.

Multi-active model: the active intent is PER SESSION. Many intents can be active on a repo at once — your current is independent of other sessions'/teammates'. The response also includes activeIntents: the repo's full active set (every session's current intent, with id/title/status/createdBy/author) for awareness and orchestration. hasActiveIntent reflects only YOUR session; activeIntents may be non-empty even when you have no current.

An active intent tracks what the user is working on, enabling:

  • Better code context for AI-generated changes

  • Conflict detection with team members

  • Automatic assignment of code blocks to the intent

Status semantics:

  • "active" — normal, in-progress. A stale intent simply stays "active"; the sweeper preserves its work without any status transition.

  • terminal states — committed / pushed / done / abandoned / superseded.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoPathYesLocal path to the repository root
forkAuthorNoFork attribution; usually resolved by Muninn automatically — pass only for override / testing.
repoOriginNoGit remote origin URL. Auto-detected from repoPath via git if not provided.
workspaceIdNoWorkspace identifier; usually resolved by Muninn automatically — pass only for override / testing.
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It fully discloses the per-session model, the multi-active support, and the status semantics. It explains the difference between 'hasActiveIntent' (session-specific) and 'activeIntents' (repo-wide). This level of detail compensates for the lack of annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with logical sections (requirement, return value, model explanation, status semantics). It front-loads the critical call-to-action. However, it is somewhat lengthy for a read-only check tool; some detail about status semantics could be omitted or moved. Still, every sentence serves a purpose.

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 absence of an output schema and the complexity of the multi-active model, the description thoroughly covers the return values ('intent', 'activeIntents'), the status lifecycle, and behavioral nuances. It leaves no obvious gaps for an agent to misunderstand how to use the tool or interpret its results.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra value for parameters: it clarifies that 'forkAuthor' and 'workspaceId' are automatically resolved and need override only for testing. This is helpful but not essential, keeping the score at baseline.

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 primary function: 'Returns THIS session's current intent'. It uses specific verbs ('check', 'returns') and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_and_activate_intent' by specifying the prerequisite nature. The tool's role in the intent life cycle is explicit.

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?

The description starts with 'REQUIRED: Call this tool BEFORE writing any code.' It provides explicit guidance on when to use it (before all coding) and when to fall back to 'create_and_activate_intent'. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's invocation context and alternatives.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/CodeAwareness/kawa.mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server