Geond Agent Protocol

Set workspace coordination policy

set_workspace_coordination_policy

Configure reservation conflict resolution in a workspace to control how multiple agents handle editing conflicts. Choose from advisory, strict, or override-with-reason policies.

Instructions

Purpose: Configure how the workspace handles reservation conflicts. When to use: call during setup or team policy changes before multiple agents edit in parallel. Inputs: workspace_id_or_uri identifies the workspace; reservation_conflict_policy chooses advisory, strict, or override-with-reason. Side effects: updates workspace policy. Output: updated policy record. Failure modes: invalid policy names are rejected.

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_or_uri": "<workspace_id_or_uri>"
    },
    "name": "set_workspace_coordination_policy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`workspace_id_or_uri`	Yes	Workspace UUID, root URI, or alias URI whose policy should change.
`reservation_conflict_policy`	No	Conflict mode: advisory, strict, or override-with-reason.	advisory

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions side effects ('updates workspace policy') and failure modes ('invalid policy names are rejected'), providing useful behavioral context beyond the obvious mutation.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (Purpose, When to use, Inputs, Side effects, Output, Failure modes). Every sentence is concise and necessary, making it easy to scan.

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?

For a setter tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers inputs, side effects, output, and failure modes. It could mention prerequisites or authorization, but overall it is complete enough.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description paraphrases the parameter descriptions ('workspace_id_or_uri identifies the workspace; reservation_conflict_policy chooses advisory, strict, or override-with-reason') without adding new meaning.

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 explicitly states the purpose: 'Configure how the workspace handles reservation conflicts.' This is a specific verb+resource combination, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_workspace_coordination_policy (read) and reservation management tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The 'When to use' section provides clear context: 'call during setup or team policy changes before multiple agents edit in parallel.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling tool 'get_workspace_coordination_policy' serves as a natural alternative for reading.

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