Skip to main content
Glama
martinbechard

MCP Agent Operations

claim_extend

Extend an existing work-item claim by adding same-domain files, trees, or resources without weakening current ownership. Ensures atomic updates and returns clear errors when scope conditions are unmet.

Instructions

Atomically add same-domain scope without weakening existing ownership.

A work-item claim cannot add operational scope. A named resource extension requires complete timing evidence. Primary-only scope from a linked claim returns SHARED_CHECKOUT_REQUIRED; invalid mixed scope leaves the registry unchanged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filesNo
treesNo
backlogNoSelect the complete primary-worktree-only backlog. Mutually exclusive with project_files and all_files; returns SHARED_CHECKOUT_REQUIRED from another checkout.
claim_idYes
all_filesNoSelect the primary-worktree-only union of project files and backlog. Mutually exclusive with project_files and backlog; requires scope_reason.
resourcesNo
repositoryYes
resource_idNo
scope_reasonNoBounded coordination-only reason required for tree, project_files, and all_files ownership.
project_filesNoSelect project files excluding backlog. Mutually exclusive with backlog and all_files; requires scope_reason. Eligible isolation is placed at the canonical primary-worktree .worktrees/<claim-id> path with backlog omitted by sparse checkout.
resource_classNo
compat_file_directoriesNo
expected_duration_secondsNo
requested_hard_stop_duration_secondsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
exit_codeYes
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses atomicity, non-weakening behavior, a specific error code (SHARED_CHECKOUT_REQUIRED), and the rollback guarantee for invalid mixed scope. This goes well beyond a generic 'extends scope', though it omits many operational details (permissions, rate limits, side effects).

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three sentences, with the main action front-loaded in the first sentence. Each sentence adds a distinct behavioral constraint. The dense domain jargon slightly reduces readability, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has 14 parameters and no annotations, but the description covers only a narrow set of edge cases and no invocation prerequisites. It doesn't explain how required parameters (repository, claim_id) relate to the extension, nor what constitutes 'same-domain'. Despite an output schema, a user would struggle to form a correct request.

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 only 29%, yet the description provides no parameter-level guidance. Terms like 'operational scope', 'named resource extension', and 'Primary-only scope' remain undefined and are not mapped to any of the 14 parameters. The description therefore fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Atomically add same-domain scope' – specific to extending a claim's scope without weakening ownership. This distinguishes it from siblings like claim_acquire (new claim) and claim_extend_deadline (deadline extension). Though terse, the purpose is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for extending an existing claim's scope, but never explicitly says when to use this tool versus claim_acquire/claim_extend_deadline. It offers constraints and error conditions rather than decision guidance. This is implied usage at best, with no exclusions or alternatives named.

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/martinbechard/mcp-agent-ops'

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