Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kiln

Kiln

by codeofaxel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

propose_fix_to_public_design

Submit a pull request proposing fixes from your copied design branch to the owner's public design for review and merge.

Instructions

Propose a fix to someone else's public design: a pull request that lands on the OWNER's design, from a branch of your copy of it.

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>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "propose_fix_to_public_design"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesWhat the fix does, in a line.
design_idYesYour copy of the public design.
descriptionNoWhy, for the owner. Default: "".
source_branch_idYesThe branch of your copy that holds the fix.
target_branch_idNoThe owner's branch to land on; one their public page shows. Omit for their public ``main``.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.5.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that the effect surfaces as a proposal on another user's design rather than a direct edit, yet it says nothing about required access, whether the owner must approve before landing, or whether the proposal is reversible (withdraw_design_pull_request exists but is not mentioned).

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?

A single sentence with the core action front-loaded and a colon-clause that explains the mechanics. No filler, no repetition of the tool name or title.

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?

For a five-parameter cross-user write tool with annotations but no output schema, the description conveys the essential mental model (proposal, not edit; your branch to their branch). The main residual gap is that nothing is said about the outcome of a successful call, which matters more here because there is no output schema to describe the returned pull request.

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 explains design_id, source_branch_id and target_branch_id. The description reinforces the ownership split (your copy's branch → the owner's branch) but adds no syntax, default, or constraint detail beyond the schema's own 'Omit for their public main' note.

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 and resource ('Propose a fix to someone else's public design') and adds a precise mechanism metaphor ('a pull request that lands on the OWNER's design, from a branch of your copy of it'). This implicitly separates it from propose_design_change (your own design) and withdraw/review_design_pull_request, but it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 'a branch of your copy of it' implies the prerequisite that you must already have a copy (fork_public_design) with a branch before calling, and the 'someone else's' framing scopes it to public designs you do not own. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative for the same-design case.

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