Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
moamcp

moamcp

by Yorha9e
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

moa_tower_merge

Merge a mission branch into the base tower branch after verifying all required gates: mission ownership, dependencies, clean reviews, scope, and CI status; reports any merge conflicts.

Instructions

Merge a mission branch into the base (tower-only). The hard gate runs in fixed order: branch belongs to a mission → dependencies merged → survey zero-diff noop → review exists → latest round fully clean (every reviewer of the highest round) → branch tip unchanged since the clean review → changed files inside the mission scope (picomatch) → CI green (only when a ci_command is configured on boot — requires a ci/ record with commit == current tip && exitCode == 0 && clean worktree; otherwise skipped) → git merge --no-ff → conflicts report. Every blocked step records a merge.blocked activity-log line.

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": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>",
      "caller_agent_id": "<caller_agent_id>",
      "branch": "<branch>"
    },
    "name": "moa_tower_merge"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
branchYesThe mission branch to merge into the base branch (e.g. "feat/M1-x")
workspaceYesThe absolute repo root (main checkout) this tower namespace anchors to. Required on every tower tool — the server cwd is never used as a fallback.
caller_agent_idYesYour engine agent id. The tower tools resolve it against the boot-registered roster (the booted tower, or a spawned worker/reviewer).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.13.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses the exact sequence of blocking checks, the CI-skip condition, the final 'git merge --no-ff' action, conflict reporting, and the activity-log side effect. This gives the agent a clear model of what actually happens when invoked.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is dense but front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a logical, ordered list of gates using arrows. Every clause conveys a necessary condition or behavior, and there is no redundant or filler text—appropriate for a complex tool.

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?

Without an output schema, the description covers most necessary context: the full gate pipeline, edge cases (CI only when configured), and the conflict report outcome. However, it does not explicitly describe the success return value beyond 'conflicts report' or the exact shape of merge results, leaving minor ambiguity.

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%, with each parameter already explained in the input schema. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing that 'branch' is a mission branch and that 'workspace' anchors the tower namespace, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 immediately states the specific action 'Merge a mission branch into the base (tower-only)', which clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from other tower tools. It further elaborates the scope and purpose by listing the gate conditions, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides extensive when-to-use guidance by enumerating the hard gates in fixed order (mission membership, dependencies merged, clean review, CI green, etc.), telling the agent the prerequisites before calling. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of perfect guidance.

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