Skip to main content
Glama

n2_work_claim

Claim file ownership before modifying a file to prevent edit collisions with other agents and record the intended change.

Instructions

Claim file ownership before modifying. Prevents collision with other agents.

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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "agent": "<agent>",
      "filePath": "<filePath>",
      "intent": "<intent>"
    },
    "name": "n2_work_claim"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentYesAgent name
intentYesWhy you are modifying this file
projectYesProject name
filePathYesFile path relative to project root

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv9.2.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not explain whether the claim is exclusive, what happens if the file is already claimed, whether the claim expires, how it is released, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a coordination/mutation tool, those omissions are significant.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the action, and contains no filler. Every phrase contributes to purpose or usage.

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?

For a file-ownership claim tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is incomplete. It omits conflict behavior, release/expiry semantics, and how the claim integrates with other work-session tools, leaving an agent without enough information to use it confidently in edge cases.

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 all four required parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no field-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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.

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: claiming file ownership before modification. It also explains the purpose with collision prevention, making the core action clear. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings such as n2_work_start or n2_work_log, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'before modifying' gives a clear usage point, and 'prevents collision with other agents' implies a concurrency-control context. However, it does not state when not to use this tool, whether it belongs to a work-session lifecycle, or how the claim is released.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.