seam

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

seam_notes

Take review notes from seam for answering; reserves them for this session and returns each with file, lines, surrounding code, user text, and earlier replies. Select by IDs or batch; up to 20 per call.

Instructions

Take review notes the user left in seam, a terminal diff viewer, in order to answer them: without arguments the open and sent notes, leaving out notes of other branches than the checked-out one; with ids those notes; with batch the notes the user sent to this session. Giving both ids and batch fails, and so does a batch that does not exist. Taking reserves the notes for this session so that no other agent session answers them; they stay reserved until this session exits or the user gives them back, and after a crash only the user can, so take only what you will answer. Each note comes with its file, its lines and the lines around them, the user's text and earlier answers; the call returns one claim to give seam_reply with each answer. Notes it cannot take come back under refused with the reason: unknown, taken (by any session, this one too), answered, resolved, other_session (the batch went to another session) or rebatched (sent again or edited since; leave those). It takes at most 20 notes per call; when more is true, call again for the rest. To read notes without reserving them, use seam_notes_view.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	No	the notes, by id; without ids and batch all open or sent ones of the branch checked out
`batch`	No	the batch a message from seam's channel named; not with ids

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`more`	Yes	more open notes are left for another call
`claim`	Yes	to give seam_reply with each answer to these notes
`notes`	Yes
`refused`	Yes	notes of ids not taken, and why

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations mark this non-read-only and non-idempotent; the description justifies that by disclosing the reservation model, how long reservations last, the crash case where only the user can release them, and the full refusal taxonomy (unknown, taken, answered, resolved, other_session, rebatched). The only missing piece is the shape of the returned note content, which the output schema covers.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and dense with information; nearly every clause carries a rule (limits, failures, refusal reasons). Some sentences are syntactically knotty ("with ids those notes"; "and so does a batch that does not exist"), costing a little readability, but there is no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Covers mode selection, reservation lifecycle, per-note payload contents, the 20-note ceiling with a retry instruction, page-again behavior, and a complete refusal reason vocabulary. Combined with the existing output schema, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it spells out the mutual-exclusion failure between ids and batch and clarifies that batch refers to a batch named by seam's channel. Minor gap: no guidance on how many ids can be passed relative to the 20-note cap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Take review notes the user left in seam") and immediately frames the goal ("in order to answer them"). It distinguishes itself from both siblings: seam_notes_view is named as the non-reserving alternative and seam_reply is named as the consumer of the returned claim.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Enumerates all three invocation modes and what each selects: no arguments = open/sent notes on the checked-out branch, ids, or batch. It also gives explicit negative guidance (ids + batch fails, nonexistent batch fails) and a caution about when not to over-take ("take only what you will answer"), plus an alternative tool for read-only access.

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

Deploy Server