Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

propose_design_change

Submit a design branch's changes for review before merging, so reviewers can inspect and approve the proposed update.

Instructions

Propose a branch's changes for review before merging.

Free door, tiered answer — Free: Pull requests on your designs you keep · Pro: Pull requests on every design · Business: ✓ · Enterprise: ✓.

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": {
      "design_id": "<design_id>",
      "source_branch_id": "<source_branch_id>",
      "target_branch_id": "<target_branch_id>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "propose_design_change"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesShort title of the proposed change. Must not be empty.
brief_idNoThe saved goal's id from ``design_session``, linking the request to it. Omit it to inherit the goal recorded on the source branch's design, if any. Default: "".
design_idYesId of the design both branches belong to.
descriptionNoLonger text explaining the change. Omit it for none. Default: "".
author_user_idNoWho proposes the change. Omit it to use the caller's own identity: on Kiln's servers the signed-in account (a different id is refused), locally the declared operator or the computer's user name.
review_artifactNoReview material to store with the request, as a dict (the diff summary, outcome prediction, commit message and rationale, regression warnings). Stored as given; omit it to store none.
reviewer_user_idNoUser id of the person asked to review, recorded on the request. Omit it to leave the request unassigned; whoever reviews it is recorded then.
source_branch_idYesId of the branch whose changes are proposed.
target_branch_idYesId of the branch the changes would merge into. Must differ from ``source_branch_id``.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed9 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / author_user_id / description
      Added value: +"Who proposes the change.  Omit it to use the caller's own identity: on Kiln's servers the signed-in account (a different id is refused), locally the declared operator or the computer's user name."
    • changedInput schema / properties / brief_id / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"The saved goal's id from ``design_session``, linking the request to it.  Omit it to inherit the goal recorded on the source branch's design, if any. Default: \"\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / description / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"\"."New value: +"Longer text explaining the change.  Omit it for none. Default: \"\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / design_id / description
      Added value: +"Id of the design both branches belong to."
    • addedInput schema / properties / review_artifact / description
      Added value: +"Review material to store with the request, as a dict (the diff summary, outcome prediction, commit message and rationale, regression warnings).  Stored as given; omit it to store none."
    • addedInput schema / properties / reviewer_user_id / description
      Added value: +"User id of the person asked to review, recorded on the request.  Omit it to leave the request unassigned; whoever reviews it is recorded then."
    • addedInput schema / properties / source_branch_id / description
      Added value: +"Id of the branch whose changes are proposed."
    • addedInput schema / properties / target_branch_id / description
      Added value: +"Id of the branch the changes would merge into.  Must differ from ``source_branch_id``."
    • addedInput schema / properties / title / description
      Added value: +"Short title of the proposed change.  Must not be empty."
  2. Addedv1.5.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation ('Open a pull request'). The description adds only an entitlement note — free tier limited to designs you keep, Pro for every design — which is genuinely useful context about failure modes, but omits what gets created, whether duplicate proposals are allowed, and what happens to the request afterward. That is a modest addition over annotations, not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the second sentence is pricing/plan boilerplate ('Business: ✓ · Enterprise: ✓') whose value to tool selection is marginal and whose formatting is noisy. Roughly half the description is not about invoking the tool.

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 nine-parameter mutation with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers purpose and entitlement but says nothing about the result (a pull request identifier) or the review workflow that the sibling tools imply. Since the schema is fully documented, the gap is tolerable but not closed.

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 nine parameters (including the nested review_artifact and the identity-inheriting author/brief defaults) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which lands at the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Propose a branch's changes for review') and implicitly situates it before merging, which separates it from merge_design_branches. It does not name sibling tools like review_design_pull_request or withdraw_design_pull_request explicitly, so differentiation is inferred 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 Guidelines3/5

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

'Before merging' implies the workflow position, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (a saved branch, differing source/target) and no routing to alternatives such as merge_design_branches or review_design_pull_request.

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