Skip to main content
Glama

source_merge_three_way

Read-only

Merge three OpenSCAD source versions against a common ancestor to combine two branches and surface conflicts for manual resolution.

Instructions

Three-way OpenSCAD source merge.

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": {
      "base_source": "<base_source>",
      "left_source": "<left_source>",
      "right_source": "<right_source>"
    },
    "name": "source_merge_three_way"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
left_labelNoLabel written after ``<<<<<<<`` on each conflict, so the reader knows which side the left text came from. Omit it to label the side ``branch_a``. Default: "branch_a".
base_sourceYesOpenSCAD text of the common ancestor both sides started from.
left_sourceYesOpenSCAD text of the first branch (branch A).
right_labelNoLabel written after ``>>>>>>>`` on each conflict. Omit it to label the side ``branch_b``. Default: "branch_b".
right_sourceYesOpenSCAD text of the second branch (branch B).
show_base_in_markersNoWhen true, each conflict also carries a ``|||||||`` block holding the ancestor's text (diff3 style). Off by default. Default: false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / base_source / description
      Added value: +"OpenSCAD text of the common ancestor both sides started from."
    • changedInput schema / properties / left_label / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"branch_a\"."New value: +"Label written after ``<<<<<<<`` on each conflict, so the reader knows which side the left text came from.  Omit it to label the side ``branch_a``. Default: \"branch_a\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / left_source / description
      Added value: +"OpenSCAD text of the first branch (branch A)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / right_label / description
      Previous value: -"Default: \"branch_b\"."New value: +"Label written after ``>>>>>>>`` on each conflict. Omit it to label the side ``branch_b``. Default: \"branch_b\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / right_source / description
      Added value: +"OpenSCAD text of the second branch (branch B)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / show_base_in_markers / description
      Previous value: -"Default: false."New value: +"When true, each conflict also carries a ``|||||||`` block holding the ancestor's text (diff3 style). Off by default. Default: false."
  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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the Kiln Pro entitlement requirement, which is real operational context not present in annotations, but says nothing about what the call returns, how conflicts are represented, or whether it can fail on unresolvable conflicts.

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 lines with zero filler and the resource named up front; the tier requirement sits in a clearly separated second line. It is efficient but borders on under-specified rather than merely concise.

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?

The tool is a simple pure function with six well-documented parameters and no output schema, so the agent needs to know what comes back. The description never states that the result is merged text containing conflict markers (only the parameter docs hint at this) or what happens when conflicts are found, leaving a meaningful gap for a merge tool.

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%, with each parameter documented including defaults and the marker syntax for labels and diff3 blocks. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: a three-way merge of OpenSCAD source text, which distinguishes it from the branch/feature merge siblings in kind (text-level merge vs. branch operations). It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as detect_merge_conflicts, compare_branches, or merge_design_branches, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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 only usage guidance is the prerequisite 'Needs Kiln Pro', which is genuinely useful for gating (the agent knows this call will fail without a paid tier). There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no named alternative for the many other merge/conflict tools in the sibling list.

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