Skip to main content
Glama
JAAvila-Of

vivac

by JAAvila-Of
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

Close the focus and step back

vivac_pop

Close the current focus and step back to its parent, recording the outcome and what to pick up next. Use it when the work opened by a push is actually finished.

Instructions

Close the current focus and step back to its parent, recording what came of it. Call it once the work vivac_push opened is actually finished, not on a whim to clear the stack: a node with open closure conditions refuses to close on its own, because a run that closes with its findings still open is exactly the mistake that refusal exists to catch. It steps back to the parent: if the work also settles that node -- the finding it fixed, the question it answered -- pop again.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nextNoWhat to pick up next, for whoever comes back. Without it the stop leaves nothing to pick up: the outcome is what was finished, not what comes next.
forceNoClose anyway, over open closure conditions. Leaves a trace that it happened.
outcomeNoWhat happened. Read back later, so leaving it out costs the next reader the point of the node.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.17.9
    • changedInput schema / properties / next / description
      Previous value: -"What comes after, when it differs from the outcome."New value: +"What to pick up next, for whoever comes back. Without it the stop leaves nothing to pick up: the outcome is what was finished, not what comes next."
  2. First observedv0.17.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds a real guard behavior beyond annotations: a node with open closure conditions refuses to close on its own, and force overrides this while leaving a trace. That refusal/override mechanic is genuinely useful and not derivable from readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false. It does not describe permissions, cost, or what state is otherwise mutated, so it is not exhaustive.

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, then the call condition, then the guard. Dense but every clause carries information. The long em-dash sentences and the second-person aside make it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description explains the stack/closure semantics and the force escape hatch that an agent needs to call this correctly. Nothing critical is missing, though it could say more about what happens to recorded outcome/next data after the pop.

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 schema already fully documents next, force, and outcome. The description reinforces the intent (force overrides open conditions) but adds little syntactic or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: "Close the current focus and step back to its parent, recording what came of it." It ties itself to the vivac_push workflow, so an agent can place it in the stack. It stops short of contrasting with other status-changing siblings like vivac_done or vivac_park, so the boundary is slightly blurry.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: "Call it once the work vivac_push opened is actually finished." Explicit when-not: "not on a whim to clear the stack." It even gives the recursive rule ("pop again" if the work also settles the parent), leaving nothing to inference.

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