Acquire a non-blocking file lock to prevent multi-agent write conflicts, using an agent ID and optional capability to coordinate concurrent code changes.
Acquire non-blocking multi-agent file lock
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| capability | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Input schema / properties / capabilityAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Capability"
+}Input schema / titlePrevious value: -"mcp_rush_mesh_acquire_lockArguments"New value: +"rush_mesh_acquire_lockArguments"Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"mcp_rush_mesh_acquire_lockOutput"New value: +"rush_mesh_acquire_lockOutput"v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Non-blocking' is useful, but the description does not explain what happens when the lock is unavailable, whether the lock is released automatically, or how ownership is determined. Key behavioral details are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and contains no filler, but it is under-specified for a three-parameter tool with no annotations. It is compact rather than appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a coordination/locking tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation, this description is not complete. It omits behavior on lock contention, return values, lock scope, and how the optional capability affects the lock. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description still leaves critical usage context undefined.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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, but it does not explain the meanings of 'path', 'agent_id', or the optional 'capability'. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, yet no additional semantic value is provided beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Acquire') and resource ('multi-agent file lock'), making the core action clear. It conveys the non-blocking nature, which distinguishes it from a blocking lock or release operation, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like rush_mesh_release_lock or other coordination tools. The non-blocking qualifier hints at one scenario, but prerequisites, conflicts, and fallback behavior are not addressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.