Skip to main content
Glama

agent_park

Destructive

Park a Claude or Codex worker overnight: kill its pane, mark the row PARKED instead of closed, record the branch, and return a resume call so paused lanes stay distinct from finished ones.

Instructions

Park a claude or codex worker for the night: kill its pane, mark the row PARKED rather than plain closed, record the branch, and hand back a board line plus the one call that brings it back. Use this instead of agent_close when the lane is paused, not finished - closed alone cannot tell a next-morning lead which is which. Resume it with agent_resume.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoThe worker's name, e.g. "impl" or "DEVX-123". Prefer passing this rather than agent_id, but pass only one: if both arrive, agent_id wins and this is ignored. A partial name works when it matches exactly one running worker, so "123" finds DEVX-123.
agent_idNoNumeric agent id. Use name instead unless you have the id to hand.
project_idNoDifferent project override. Use ONLY when the user explicitly asks for another project by name; otherwise stay in the current scope, even when results are empty.
confirm_selfNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdYes
nameYes
noteNo
parkedYes
agent_idYes
todo_idsYes
parked_atYes
board_lineYes
session_idYes
hive_noticeNo
parked_branchYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.2
    • addedOutput schema / properties / hive_notice
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: it kills the pane (concrete destructive act), records a distinct PARKED state rather than closed, and captures the branch. It does not discuss permissions or idempotency/reversibility beyond the resume pointer, so a 4 rather than 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the verb and its effects, then the routing guidance, then the resume pointer. Dense but every clause carries information; minor redundancy in restating PARKED vs closed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the destructive effect, the state distinction, and the resume path. For a destructive mutation tool this is nearly complete, with only permissions/irreversibility left implicit.

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 coverage is 75% and the schema descriptions are rich (name partial-match rules, agent_id precedence, project_id scoping). The description adds no parameter-level syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (park) and resource (claude/codex worker) and enumerates the concrete effects: kill the pane, mark the row PARKED, record the branch, return a board line plus the resume call. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling agent_close.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('when the lane is paused, not finished') and names the alternative it replaces (agent_close), plus the follow-up path (agent_resume). Nothing is left to inference.

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