Skip to main content
Glama
mattyatea

Git Conflict MCP

by mattyatea

post_resolve

Confirm Git merge conflict resolution before proceeding with the resolve_conflict tool to ensure safe conflict handling.

Instructions

Execute this tool BEFORE running resolve_conflict to confirm the resolution process. This acts as a safety confirmation step.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The execution handler for the 'post_resolve' tool. Returns a markdown/text content prompting the user for confirmation before proceeding with conflict resolution.
    async () => {
        return {
            content: [{
                type: "text",
                text: "Are you sure you have resolved the conflict correctly? Please check again."
            }]
        };
    }
  • Configuration object defining the tool's description and input schema (empty object, no parameters required).
    {
        description: "Execute this tool BEFORE running resolve_conflict to confirm the resolution process. This acts as a safety confirmation step.",
        inputSchema: z.object({}),
    },
  • Registers the 'post_resolve' tool with the MCP server using server.registerTool, including name, config, and handler.
    export function registerPostResolve(server: McpServer) {
        server.registerTool(
            "post_resolve",
            {
                description: "Execute this tool BEFORE running resolve_conflict to confirm the resolution process. This acts as a safety confirmation step.",
                inputSchema: z.object({}),
            },
            async () => {
                return {
                    content: [{
                        type: "text",
                        text: "Are you sure you have resolved the conflict correctly? Please check again."
                    }]
                };
            }
        );
    }
  • Calls registerPostResolve to include the 'post_resolve' tool in the overall tool registration during non-review mode setup.
    registerPostResolve(server);
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a confirmation step with safety implications, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't specify what happens during execution (e.g., whether it prompts for user input, logs the action, or has side effects) or any constraints like permissions needed. The description adds some value but leaves gaps in behavioral details.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the key action and context. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what to do and when, the second explains the purpose. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (simple confirmation step with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, usage timing, and relationship to sibling tools. However, it could be more complete by specifying what exactly is being confirmed or any behavioral outcomes, which would help an agent understand the tool's effect fully.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't introduce any confusion about parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately focuses on usage rather than inputs.

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 tool's purpose as a safety confirmation step that must be executed before running 'resolve_conflict'. It specifies the action ('execute this tool') and the context ('before running resolve_conflict'), though it doesn't explicitly mention what resource or entity it confirms resolution for. It distinguishes from sibling 'resolve_conflict' by being a prerequisite step.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Execute this tool BEFORE running resolve_conflict' establishes a clear temporal dependency, and 'to confirm the resolution process' explains the purpose. It distinguishes from the alternative 'resolve_conflict' by positioning this as a prerequisite safety check. No misleading guidance is present.

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/mattyatea/git-conflict-mcp'

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