Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

merge_decoration_preset_branches

Destructive

Semantically merges a decoration preset branch into another, resolves conflicts, records the merged version, and opens an interactive 3D stage to inspect the result.

Instructions

Merge source_branch into target_branch semantically. Opens Kiln's interactive inline 3D stage on the result (orbit/zoom panel in MCP Apps hosts; hosted sessions add a browser stage link).

Needs Kiln Pro.

INLINE 3D STAGE: on success this tool opens Kiln's interactive 3D stage — an inline viewer panel the user can orbit, zoom, and turn over — in hosts that render MCP Apps panels (Kiln's hosted connection attaches a browser stage link for hosts that don't). Oversized meshes are decimated automatically for the stage; the PNG preview is the floor, not the whole experience.

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": {
      "source_branch_id": "<source_branch_id>",
      "target_branch_id": "<target_branch_id>",
      "ancestor_preset_version_id": "<ancestor_preset_version_id>"
    },
    "name": "merge_decoration_preset_branches"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
merged_byNoWho performs the merge. Omit it to use the caller's own identity: on Kiln's servers the signed-in account (a different name is refused), locally the declared operator or the computer's user name. On a team-owned preset the caller needs push rights, or the merge is refused.
resolutionsNo``{feature_id: strategy}`` for each conflict; required when there are conflicts (``CONFLICTS_REQUIRE_RESOLUTION``). Here branch A is the TARGET's head and branch B the SOURCE's, so ``prefer_branch_a`` keeps the target's value. Omit it when there are no conflicts.
source_branch_idYesId of the preset branch being merged in. It must have a head version.
target_branch_idYesId of the preset branch being merged into; the merged version is added to it. The merge is refused if its head moved while the merge was being recorded (``CONCURRENT_MODIFICATION``).
ancestor_preset_version_idYesPreset version id of the common ancestor the two heads are compared against.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / ancestor_preset_version_id / description
      Added value: +"Preset version id of the common ancestor the two heads are compared against."
    • addedInput schema / properties / merged_by / description
      Added value: +"Who performs the merge.  Omit it to use the caller's own identity: on Kiln's servers the signed-in account (a different name is refused), locally the declared operator or the computer's user name.  On a team-owned preset the caller needs push rights, or the merge is refused."
    • addedInput schema / properties / resolutions / description
      Added value: +"``{feature_id: strategy}`` for each conflict; required when there are conflicts (``CONFLICTS_REQUIRE_RESOLUTION``).  Here branch A is the TARGET's head and branch B the SOURCE's, so ``prefer_branch_a`` keeps the target's value.  Omit it when there are no conflicts."
    • addedInput schema / properties / source_branch_id / description
      Added value: +"Id of the preset branch being merged in. It must have a head version."
    • addedInput schema / properties / target_branch_id / description
      Added value: +"Id of the preset branch being merged into; the merged version is added to it.  The merge is refused if its head moved while the merge was being recorded (``CONCURRENT_MODIFICATION``)."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and not read-only, so the main safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that it opens an interactive 3D stage, automatically decimates oversized meshes for the stage, and requires Kiln Pro. However, it does not explain the merge outcome or mutation consequences in the description itself, leaving that to the schema parameter descriptions.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the description then spends two passages on the inline 3D stage, repeating the same viewer concept. That repetition inflates the description without adding proportional value for a merge operation.

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?

Given a 5-parameter destructive merge with a nested resolutions object and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and stage side effect. It omits how conflicts are surfaced, what the return behavior is, and when to prefer this tool over related merge tools. The rich schema fills some gaps, but the description alone is only adequate.

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 the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description mentions source_branch and target_branch in prose but adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, such as resolution strategy details or branch-head preconditions.

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: 'Merge source_branch into target_branch semantically.' That is clear enough to identify the operation, and the parameter names reinforce that these are preset branches. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing this from sibling merge tools such as merge_design_branches or merge_feature_branches.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it say to run conflict detection first. 'Needs Kiln Pro' is a prerequisite, not usage guidance. The closest implied guidance is that this is for merging preset branches, but the agent must infer that from the name and parameters.

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