Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Agent Coherence — Stale Write Guard (FS)

Agent Coherence — Stale Write Guard (FS)

Official
by Cohexa-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

swg_decline

As the successor, decline the live handoff of a path: the handoff ends and its giver's fence lifts. Refused with handoff_not_successor or handoff_not_live, as an error that changes nothing (recover=stop_and_report, retryable=false, and a…

Instructions

As the successor, decline the live handoff of a path: the handoff ends and its giver's fence lifts. Refused with handoff_not_successor or handoff_not_live, as an error that changes nothing (recover=stop_and_report, retryable=false, and a fixed next_step). A transfer fences the giver and does not reserve the path: other sessions keep reading and writing it by the ordinary rules, and the handoff only labels what they do. SINGLE-HOST only. Out of guarantee and NOT detected in v1: writers on different hosts or across a synced/network mount, divergent-history reconciliation, semantic correctness, server-enforced auto-merge.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "swg_decline"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.15.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite only a readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses the state change (handoff ends, giver's fence lifts), the two failure codes, and their semantics (recover=stop_and_report, retryable=false, fixed next_step). It also scopes guarantees (SINGLE-HOST, no detection of multi-host/mount writers, no auto-merge), which is exactly the behavioral context annotations do not supply.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core action and effect are front-loaded well, but the passage is dense and includes a long trailing guarantee-scope sentence spanning multiple caveats. The information is useful but not tightly trimmed.

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?

With no output schema and a single parameter, the description adequately covers the mutation's effect, error modes, retry semantics, and applicability limits. Only finer param semantics are missing, which is a minor gap for this tool.

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?

With one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden. It implies 'path' identifies the handoff being declined, giving minimal semantic grounding, but adds no format, origin, or validation detail beyond that implication.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'decline the live handoff of a path,' and clarifies the role ('as the successor') and effect ('the handoff ends and its giver's fence lifts'). It is clearly distinct from acceptance/transfer siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the 'as the successor' framing and the refusal conditions (handoff_not_successor, handoff_not_live), which tell an agent when the call is valid. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance, e.g. decline vs withdraw or reacquire.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools