Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mirsad

Mirsad

by amkkoussay
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

open_conflicts

Lists disagreements between agents awaiting your ruling so you can review and resolve conflicts in the shared memory hub.

Instructions

Disagreements between agents that are waiting for the user's ruling.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "open_conflicts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys state semantics (open = pending user ruling, so the agent should not treat these as settled) but says nothing about read-only behavior, ordering, volume, or what a returned conflict record contains.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise: the fragment omits the verb entirely, so brevity comes at the cost of stating the action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, this description is the only source of information, and it leaves out the operation, the return shape, and how the results relate to resolve_conflict. For a zero-arg retrieval tool it should at minimum say it lists pending conflicts and that resolving them is a separate tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to document; the baseline for a no-argument tool applies. Nothing in the description contradicts or omits parameter information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is a noun phrase, not a verb+resource statement: it defines what a conflict is ('disagreements between agents') and what 'open' means ('waiting for the user's ruling'), but never says what the tool does with them (presumably returns the list). An agent can guess it retrieves pending conflicts, but the operation is implied rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives, despite a sibling named resolve_conflict that is the obvious companion action. The only steer is implicit in 'waiting for the user's ruling', which hints these entries are not yet actionable.

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