musterd

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

lane_claim

Claim an open lane for your work and return contention warnings; refuses lanes already owned by a live teammate so you can request a handover or release.

Instructions

Take ownership of an open lane. Refuses a lane a live teammate already owns — ask them to hand it over or release it. Returns the lane + contention warnings.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "lane_claim"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	lane id
`goal_id`	No	link a goal as you take it (one call)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.1Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description still carries the core behavior: it is a state-changing ownership claim that refuses lanes owned by live teammates and returns contention warnings. It does not detail permissions, idempotency, or stale-owner edge cases, so it falls short of fully transparent for a mutation tool.

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 three short sentences that front-load the action, then the refusal condition, then the return behavior. There is no redundant wording and every sentence adds useful information.

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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, precondition, alternative behavior, and a basic return payload. The remaining gaps are deeper edge-case semantics such as stale ownership and exact contention warning meaning.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already explains both the required lane id and optional goal_id. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: take ownership of an open lane. It distinguishes the action from related lane tools by focusing on claiming an existing open lane and by describing the refusal condition for lanes owned by live teammates.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly indicates when to use the tool: when claiming ownership of an open lane. It also gives an alternative path when the lane is owned by a live teammate—ask them to hand it over or release it—though it does not explicitly name the sibling handoff/release tools.

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