Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
storyai

storyai

by jedikim
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

commit

DestructiveIdempotent

Atomically apply or dry-run a stored proposal; no changes are made on conflict.

Instructions

저장된 제안을 단일 SQLite 커밋 레인에서 원자적으로 적용하거나 dry_run 합니다. 충돌하면 어떤 변경도 적용하지 않습니다.

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": {
      "proposal_id": "<proposal_id>"
    },
    "name": "commit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoapply
proposal_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false. The description adds valuable context about atomicity and conflict handling ('if conflict, no changes applied'), which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the transactional 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and atomicity guarantee. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundant phrasing.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters, an output schema exists, and the description covers the core behavior. It could mention the safety of dry_run versus apply, but given the annotations and default mode, the essentials are present. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'proposal_id' or 'mode'. While 'mode' with enum apply/dry_run is self-explanatory from the description, 'proposal_id' is left undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb 'apply' and the resource 'stored proposal', and specifies atomic execution with a dry_run option. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on committing a previously saved proposal, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'propose' or 'impact'. There is no mention of prerequisites, ordering, or when to choose dry_run over apply. The agent must infer usage from context.

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