Retrieve a teammate's shared Git branch from Quorus into a read-only ref in your local repo, so you can inspect it with git show.
Fetch a branch a teammate shared (📦 ... quorus fetch b_...) into a
read-only ref refs/quorus//, so git show works on it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| room_id | Yes | ||
| bundle_id | Yes | ||
| repo_path | No | . |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: the result lands in a read-only ref rather than a working branch. It omits whether this mutates the local repo, whether the ref must not already exist, idempotency, and any auth/room membership requirement.
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?
A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and the value proposition. Slightly dense with project-specific jargon ('📦', 'quorus', 'refs/quorus/<them>/<branch>') that costs a newcomer some parsing effort.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the destination ref is given. However, with three undocumented parameters and no annotations, the definition leaves an agent guessing about inputs and side effects before it can call the tool correctly.
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 description coverage is 0% for all three parameters and the description explains none of them. The only hint is that bundle_id looks like 'b_...'; room_id and especially repo_path (default '.') are left entirely to inference, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (fetch) and resource (a branch a teammate shared) and names the concrete artifact produced (refs/quorus/<them>/<branch>), which an agent can act on. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling share_branch but never names it explicitly, so it falls short of perfect sibling differentiation.
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?
The parenthetical '📦 ... quorus fetch b_...' ties the tool to the shared-bundle trigger, so the when-to-use context is implied. There is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it, no mention of share_branch as the counterpart, and no prerequisite such as needing to be in the room.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.