Skip to main content
Glama

arbiter_resolve

Judge live code overlaps from Stop collision reports with AI verdicts — compatible, auto_resolvable, or conflict — including confidence, risk, and tier. Understand forming conflicts before acting.

Instructions

Get Kawa Code's AI verdict for live code overlaps with peers — SUGGEST-ONLY, never writes. For each overlap ({peerUid, filePath, ranges} from the Stop collision report), Kawa decrypts the peer's version locally (zero-knowledge) and judges it compatible / auto_resolvable / conflict, with confidence, a perf/security risk read, and a tier (0 no-op · 1 trivially auto-appliable · 2 draft-and-confirm · 3 conflict). Use it to understand a forming conflict before acting. For a surfaced tier-2/3 overlap, call get_resolution_context to read the peer's actual code. To actually apply the safe tier, use arbiter_apply.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
intentIdNoActive intent ID (advisory). Auto-detected by Kawa Code when omitted.
overlapsYesThe overlaps to judge — each { peerUid, filePath, ranges } from the Stop collision report.
repoPathYesLocal path to the repository root
forkAuthorNoFork attribution; usually resolved by Muninn automatically — pass only for override / testing.
repoOriginNoGit remote origin URL. Auto-detected from repoPath via git if not provided.
workspaceIdNoWorkspace identifier; usually resolved by Muninn automatically — pass only for override / testing.
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses safety (SUGGEST-ONLY, never writes), zero-knowledge decryption, and output details (compatible/auto_resolvable/conflict, confidence, perf/security risk, tier). No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Minor gap: no mention of auth or rate limits, but detailed enough.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the key purpose and safety guarantee. It efficiently explains input, output, and usage flow without wasted words.

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 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description comprehensively explains inputs, output fields, and workflow integration. Slightly missing explicit response format, but output details are described inline.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds context beyond schema: intentId is advisory/auto-detected, overlaps format from Stop report, forkAuthor and workspaceId typically auto-resolved. This significantly aids parameter understanding.

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 'Get Kawa Code's AI verdict for live code overlaps with peers — SUGGEST-ONLY, never writes.' It identifies the specific verb (get verdict) and resource (overlaps), and distinguishes from sibling tools like arbiter_apply and get_resolution_context.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use it to understand a forming conflict before acting.' and directs when to use alternatives: 'For a surfaced tier-2/3 overlap, call get_resolution_context... To actually apply the safe tier, use arbiter_apply.' This provides clear when/when-not guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kawacode-ai/kawa.mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server