Geond Agent Protocol

Get active file reservations

get_active_reservations

Check active file reservations in a workspace to avoid editing conflicts between agents. Filter by specific file paths to identify coordination overlaps.

Instructions

Purpose: Read current file reservations for a workspace. When to use: call before editing or reviewing files to detect coordination conflicts. Inputs: workspace_id and optional file_paths filter. Side effects: none beyond database reads. Output: active reservations with agents, purpose, TTL, and file paths. Failure modes: returns an empty list when no active reservations match.

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": {
      "workspace_id": "<workspace_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_active_reservations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_paths`	No	Optional repo-relative file paths used to filter reservations.
`workspace_id`	Yes	Workspace UUID whose file reservations should be listed.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It accurately states 'Side effects: none beyond database reads' and describes output and failure modes. Could mention authorization needs, but common sense suffices.

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?

The description is extremely concise with a clear bullet-point structure. Each section is one sentence, front-loading critical information with no fluff.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given that an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context about the tool's behavior and output structure. Could mention if there is pagination, but likely not needed for this tool.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters described in schema). The description only names the parameters without additional semantics, so it adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the purpose as 'Read current file reservations for a workspace' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that modify reservations (e.g., reserve_files, release_reservation).

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?

Explicitly says 'call before editing or reviewing files to detect coordination conflicts', providing clear when-to-use guidance. Inputs are summarized (workspace_id and optional file_paths filter).

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