action1-mcp-server

Check for package matching conflicts when editing and existing package version

action1_get_match_conflicts_for_package

Read-onlyIdempotent

Detect package matching conflicts before editing an existing package version, so you can resolve software-name clashes before changes are applied.

Instructions

Check for package matching conflicts when editing and existing package version. Perm: view_software_repository.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`org_id`	No	Org UUID.
`verbose`	No	Skip per-item compactor.
`package_id`	Yes	Provide a specific package ID.
`app_name_match`	No	Provide the REGEX expression to match the software name.
`response_format`	No	Output format. Default markdown.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`name`	No
`self`	No
`type`	No
`status`	No
`vendor`	No
`builtin`	No
`versions`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed11 schema fields changedv0.6.0Oct 26, 2026
- changedInput schema / $schema
```
Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
```
- changedOutput schema / $schema
```
Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
```
- changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -trueNew value: +{}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / builtin
```
Added value: +{}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / id
```
Added value: +{}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / name
```
Added value: +{}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / self
```
Added value: +{}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / status
```
Added value: +{}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / type
```
Added value: +{}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / vendor
```
Added value: +{}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / versions
```
Added value: +{}
```
First observedv0.5.0Jun 27, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds a key behavioral constraint—the required permission ('Perm: view_software_repository')—which is operational context not provided by the hints. Since the annotations already establish read-only safety, the description adds valuable, non-redundant context.

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 definition is highly condensed, using two sentences to cover the purpose and the required permission without any wasted language.

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 clear purpose, strong annotations regarding safety, and explicit listing of required permissions, the definition is nearly complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no unique semantic meaning about how to use the parameters beyond their definition.

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 defines the tool's function as checking for package matching conflicts. It specifically limits this check to editing and existing package versions, providing high granularity.

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?

While the description sets a clear context ('when editing and existing package version'), it doesn't explicitly guide the agent on when to choose this over other conflict resolution or update tools, relying on the agent's understanding of 'editing vs. existing package version'.

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

Deploy Server