Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KrakenMCP

KrakenMCP

by gateniomer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

merge

Preview a run’s branch changes and get a confirmation token; after developer approval, apply that branch into the current branch and clean up.

Instructions

Without confirm: a preview and confirm_token. With confirm: merge the run's branch into the current branch and clean up. Only confirm after the developer approves the preview.

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": {
      "run_id": "<run_id>"
    },
    "name": "merge"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
run_idYes
confirmNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.3

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the preview/confirm flow and cleanup, but does not explain permissions, irreversibility, what cleanup removes, or error behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the preview/confirm distinction, and no redundant wording.

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?

Covers the core workflow but lacks detail on run_id, cleanup scope, preview output, and safety considerations for a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains confirm's dual behavior and the confirm_token, and run_id is implied by 'the run's branch', but it does not document run_id format or where the token comes from.

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 action: merge the run's branch into the current branch and clean up, and distinguishes preview from confirmed execution. It does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as discard or review, so it falls 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 Guidelines3/5

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

Explains that confirm should only be used after the developer approves the preview, implying a preview-first workflow. It gives no guidance on when to choose merge over sibling tools like discard or review, nor any prerequisites.

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