totem-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

resolve_conflict_tool

Mark a detected conflict as resolved by recording its ID and resolution details, helping engineering agents keep project knowledge consistent across sessions.

Instructions

Mark a conflict as resolved.

Args: conflict_id: The conflict ID resolution: Description of how the conflict was resolved (e.g. 'Kept existing: X') project: Optional project root path. Auto-detected from git root if omitted.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`actor`	No
`project`	No
`session`	No
`request_id`	No
`resolution`	Yes
`conflict_id`	Yes
`operation_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.6.0Oct 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / actor

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Actor"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / operation_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Operation Id"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / request_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Request Id"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / session

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Session"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It is a mutation ('mark as resolved') but does not disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens to the conflict afterward. It does add one useful behavioral note — project auto-detection from git root — which lifts it above a bare minimum.

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 one-line summary is front-loaded and the Args block is compact with no filler. Structure is clean and appropriate for the content given.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But a mutation tool with zero annotations and four undocumented parameters, plus no usage or lifecycle context, leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently.

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 description coverage is 0% and there are 7 parameters, yet the description documents only conflict_id, resolution (with an example), and project. The remaining four (actor, session, request_id, operation_id) are left entirely undefined, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a conflict as resolved.' An agent can tell what the tool does. However, it offers no differentiation from sibling tools (e.g., ambiguity/flag tools), so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., the conflict must exist / be open), and no when-not conditions. The text is purely a parameter list.

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