Check for file or symbol collisions on a branch without registering a claim, enabling a dry run before editing shared code.
Check for collisions without registering a claim (a dry run).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | ||
| files | No | ||
| reads | No | ||
| branch | Yes | ||
| repoId | No | ||
| agentId | No | ||
| symbols | No | ||
| projectId | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| conflicts | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses an important trait, that no claim is registered, but omits permissions, side effects beyond claim registration, validation behavior, and whether any state is mutated.
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?
It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The dry-run constraint is placed after the core action, keeping the purpose immediately clear.
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?
For an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation, this one-sentence description is incomplete. The output schema may cover return values, but the description says too little about inputs, collision semantics, and required context.
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?
The schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description names none of them. It does not explain repo, branch, files, symbols, or the other inputs that determine collision checking.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Check for collisions.' It also distinguishes this tool from claim-registering siblings with 'without registering a claim (a dry run),' so an agent can tell it apart from claim_intent without inspecting schemas.
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 dry-run phrasing clearly implies when to use this tool: to check collisions before or instead of registering a claim. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state when registration is required, so some inference remains.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.