Skip to main content
Glama
kuklaph
by kuklaph

Check In Asset

cascade_check_in

Commit working changes to a checked-out Cascade asset, saving comments to version history and releasing the lock.

Instructions

Release a checked-out Cascade asset and commit the working copy with a comment.

Completes the pair opened by cascade_check_out: the working copy becomes the new committed version, the lock is released, and the comments string is stored in the asset's version history. Must be called by the same user who performed the check-out. The asset (identified by id/path) must be currently checked out — Cascade will reject check-in of an asset that isn't locked.

Args:

  • identifier (object, required): The asset to check in

    • id (string, optional): Asset ID (preferred)

    • path (object, optional): { path, siteId OR siteName }

    • type (string, required): Entity type of the asset

  • comments (string, required): Description of the changes — stored in version history

Returns: Cascade OperationResult: { success: true } On failure: { success: false, message: "" }

Examples:

  • Use when: "Commit working changes with a note" -> { identifier: { type: "page", id: "..." }, comments: "Fixed broken links in footer." }

  • Don't use when: The asset isn't checked out — you'll get "Asset not checked out".

  • Don't use when: Someone else checked it out — only the owner can check in.

Error Handling:

  • "Asset not found" when the identifier doesn't resolve

  • "Asset not checked out" when the asset isn't currently locked

  • "Checked out by another user" when a different user holds the lock

  • "Permission denied" when credentials lack edit rights. Responses are JSON text; structuredContent is authoritative when the response fits. Oversized responses return bounded _cache metadata for cascade_read_response. For cascade_read, read_mode controls preview versus raw Cascade payload shape.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
identifierNoThe checked-out asset (or its working copy) to check back in.
commentsNoREQUIRED: Check-in comments describing the changes. Empty string is allowed.
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds that the lock is released, working copy becomes the new version, and comments are stored. It lists error messages ('Asset not found', 'not checked out', etc.). However, it doesn't explicitly address idempotency (that calling twice fails) or clarify if the operation is reversible, which would enhance transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling). However, it ends with an irrelevant block about 'Responses are JSON text... cascade_read_response' that seems copied from another tool, adding clutter. This reduces conciseness and focus.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return format (OperationResult with success/message). It covers the lifecycle with check_out, error handling, and prerequisites. All necessary information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly is present.

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 description coverage is 100% but the main description goes beyond by detailing the nested structure of 'identifier' (id, path, type) and the required nature of 'comments'. It provides concrete examples and error conditions, adding significant value over the schema alone.

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 tool's function: release a checked-out asset, commit the working copy, and store comments in version history. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'cascade_check_out' by explicitly pairing with it. The verb 'check in' is precise and unambiguous.

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 includes explicit 'Use when' and 'Don't use when' examples, specifying that it should be used to commit changes and not if the asset isn't checked out or if another user holds the lock. It also states the caller must be the same user who checked out, providing clear decision 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/kuklaph/cascade-cms-mcp-server'

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