LLM Bus

lease

Prevent file collisions by establishing an advisory lease on a surface. Returns overlapping holders to coordinate access among agents.

Instructions

Advisory lease on a surface (file/path) — visibility, not a hard lock. Returns current overlapping holders.

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": {
      "surface": "<surface>"
    },
    "name": "lease"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`surface`	Yes
`ttl_seconds`	No
`note`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the advisory nature and that it returns overlapping holders, but does not explain side effects like persistence or behavior with ttl. Some value beyond schema but gaps remain.

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?

The description is very concise at 13 words, front-loaded with key info. However, it lacks structure like bullet points and could be slightly more verbose without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, parameter effects, or lifecycle of the lease. More detail is needed for a tool managing leases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only clarifies 'surface' as a file/path, but ignores 'ttl_seconds' and 'note'. This is insufficient for a three-parameter tool.

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 clearly states it is an 'advisory lease on a surface (file/path)' and differentiates it from a hard lock. The verb 'lease' and resource 'surface' are specific. However, it could be more explicit about the action (e.g., acquiring a lease).

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 description implies when to use it (advisory vs hard lock) through phrasing, but does not explicitly state when to use or alternatives. No guidance on when not to use or comparisons to siblings like 'claim' or 'release'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.