Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
musterd

musterd

Official
by musterd-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

lane_submit

Submit PR or SHA evidence after a merge and supply authorized_by proof for acceptance; the response names the acceptor and next step.

Instructions

After merge, submit PR/SHA evidence; provide A2 proof for authorized_by. Response names the acceptor and next step.

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_submit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYeslane id
prNolanded PR number; omit for a local merge
shaNosquash-merge SHA on main
branchNobranch carrying the work
acceptorNoroute the acceptance ask to THIS seat instead of the picker's choice; recorded as route "named"
approvalNo
follows_upNo
read_verdictNo
authorized_byNothe human whose authority the merge ran under

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a precondition (post-merge), an authorization requirement ('provide A2 proof for authorized_by'), and response behavior ('names the acceptor and next step'). What is missing is failure behavior, whether the named acceptor routes state elsewhere, and idempotency for repeat submissions.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, and every clause maps to a real element of the call. The only waste is unexplained terminology ('A2 proof') that costs the reader more than it saves.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It partially compensates by summarizing the response ('names the acceptor and next step') but leaves three undocumented parameters and the entire authorization-proof mechanism opaque.

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 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description does reinforce pr/sha as 'evidence' and ties authorized_by to an A2 proof requirement, but 'A2 proof' adds opacity rather than meaning. Three parameters (approval, follows_up, read_verdict) have no descriptions anywhere and receive no coverage here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb 'submit' plus 'PR/SHA evidence' gives a concrete action and payload, and 'After merge' hints at the domain. However, 'lane' as a resource is undefined in the description, and the phrase 'A2 proof' is unexplained jargon that an agent cannot decode without prior context. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as lane_update or lane_resolve.

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 temporal trigger 'After merge' is an explicit usage condition and is the strongest guidance present. There is no statement of when NOT to use this versus lane_update or lane_resolve, which likely also record lane state, so the agent must infer the boundary from sibling names alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools