musterd

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

lane_update

Update a work lane's state, title, scope, dependencies, branch, or detail. Setting a lane active re-runs contention checks so conflicting work is caught before it starts.

Instructions

Update a lane: state (active/blocked/done/…), title, scope, depends_on, branch, detail, project, goal_id. Going active re-runs contention checks.

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_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	lane id
`card`	No
`areas`	No	set declared areas, or null to clear them and derive from scope
`scope`	No
`state`	No	new state
`title`	No	correct a mis-stated title
`branch`	No
`detail`	No
`merged`	No	pass null to CLEAR a wrong merge attestation (owner or admin only). To attest a merge use lane_submit / lane_resolve, which verify the SHA.
`metric`	No
`sample`	No
`stakes`	No	re-declare acceptance stakes (ADR 234): low \| normal \| high
`goal_id`	No	link (or clear, with null) this lane to a Goal
`project`	No	re-declare the surface-space
`evidence`	No
`measured`	No
`reads_on`	No
`requested`	No
`depends_on`	No
`park_until`	No
`source_ref`	No
`park_reason`	No
`read_verdict`	No
`abandon_reason`	No
`pre_registered`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.1Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden for a 25-parameter mutation tool, and it supplies only one behavioral fact: going active re-runs contention checks. It says nothing about authorization, reversibility, what clearing a field means, or what happens to unmentioned fields; the useful permission note lives only in the schema's `merged` property.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, with zero filler. It is arguably terse to the point of being cryptic, but nothing in it is wasted or buried.

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?

A 25-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema needs far more than two sentences. The description leaves the agent unable to reason about most parameter effects or about how this tool relates to the ten other lane/team tools.

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 32% across 25 parameters, so the description needed to compensate and does not. It names nine fields without explaining their semantics, and the majority of parameters (card, areas, metric, sample, stakes, evidence, measured, reads_on, requested, park_until, park_reason, read_verdict, abandon_reason, pre_registered, source_ref, merged) are never mentioned at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update a lane") and enumerates the main mutable fields, so an agent immediately knows this is the general-purpose lane mutator. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like lane_claim, lane_release, lane_submit, or lane_resolve, which also change lane state.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to the sibling tools that handle state transitions (claim/release/submit/resolve). "Going active re-runs contention checks" is a side effect, not a usage rule, so the agent has to infer routing from the field list alone.

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