Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

detect_decoration_preset_merge_conflicts

Read-only

Detect field-level merge conflicts between two decoration preset branches before merging, identifying conflicting fields so you can resolve them safely. Requires Kiln Pro.

Instructions

Detect field-level conflicts between two preset branches.

Needs Kiln Pro.

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": {
      "ancestor_preset_version_id": "<ancestor_preset_version_id>",
      "branch_a_preset_version_id": "<branch_a_preset_version_id>",
      "branch_b_preset_version_id": "<branch_b_preset_version_id>"
    },
    "name": "detect_decoration_preset_merge_conflicts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ancestor_preset_version_idYesPreset version id of the common ancestor both sides started from.
branch_a_preset_version_idYesPreset version id of one side (branch A, as named in the report).
branch_b_preset_version_idYesPreset version id of the other side (branch B). All three must exist (``PRESET_NOT_FOUND``).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / ancestor_preset_version_id / description
      Added value: +"Preset version id of the common ancestor both sides started from."
    • addedInput schema / properties / branch_a_preset_version_id / description
      Added value: +"Preset version id of one side (branch A, as named in the report)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / branch_b_preset_version_id / description
      Added value: +"Preset version id of the other side (branch B).  All three must exist (``PRESET_NOT_FOUND``)."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the tier gate ('Needs Kiln Pro') and the fact that conflicts are reported at field granularity, but it says nothing about what the report contains, ordering, or what happens when the three versions are unrelated.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite trailing. Nothing is redundant, though 'Needs Kiln Pro' is terse enough to be slightly opaque about the failure mode.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a read-only, three-required-parameter detection tool with no output schema, the description should at least sketch what is returned (a conflict list keyed by field?) and the three-way ancestor semantics. It covers the purpose and tier gate but leaves the agent guessing about the result shape.

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 100% and each parameter is well documented, including the ancestor's role and the PRESET_NOT_FOUND condition. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('detect') and resource ('field-level conflicts between two preset branches'), which distinguishes it from the look-alike siblings detect_merge_conflicts and detect_feature_merge_conflicts by naming preset branches explicitly. It stops short of saying what entity type the conflicts belong to (decorations/textures), so it is clear but not maximally sharp.

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?

'Needs Kiln Pro' gives a real gating prerequisite, but there is no statement of when to call this versus merge_decoration_preset_branches or rebase_preset_branch, and no note that it is a pre-merge check. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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