Skip to main content
Glama

update

Merges the current branch into a run’s branch when it is behind or has merge conflicts, and lets the run’s agent resolve conflicts as a new run unless resolution is disabled.

Instructions

Merge the current branch into a run's branch (when it is behind or merge conflicts). On conflicts the run's agent resolves them as a new run, unless resolve is false.

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": "update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
run_idYes
resolveNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.3

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a non-obvious side effect: conflicts are resolved by the run's agent as a new run. That is genuinely useful, but it omits revocability, required working-tree/permission preconditions, and what the call returns on success versus conflict.

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 compact sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the conflict condition immediately after. The parenthetical placement is slightly awkward but nothing is redundant.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the conflict branch, but leaves open what 'the current branch' refers to and what the agent should expect back after a merge or a spawned run.

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 does explain 'resolve' through 'unless resolve is false', but it never states the expected format or scope of run_id, so half the parameters remain undocumented in both places.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource: it merges the current branch into a run's branch, which is far more informative than the vague tool name 'update'. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool named 'merge', so an agent facing both sees no stated difference.

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 parenthetical '(when it is behind or merge conflicts)' gives a partial trigger condition for calling the tool, which is more than nothing. There is no when-not guidance and no mention of the 'merge' sibling as an alternative path, leaving the choice between the two ambiguous.

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