Skip to main content
Glama
naw103

Foremerge

by naw103
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

Check intent conflicts

check_conflicts
Read-only

Compare your planned work with other agents' active intents to uncover conflicts before writing code. Return severity, evidence, and suggested coordination steps to resolve overlapping work.

Instructions

Ask whether planned work collides with other agents' active work, before any code changes exist. Read-only: nothing is stored. Pass intent_id alone to list the persisted OPEN or COORDINATING conflicts on a published intent (use this before publish_changeset and before run_verification, since conflicts are raised when the later intent publishes). Pass intent text with scopes, or intent_id with replacement scopes, for a what-if check against every intent from INTENT through VALIDATED, excluding ACCEPTED, COMMITTED and DISCARDED; those findings carry ephemeral eph_ ids and are not recorded. Returns conflicts (each with severity, explanation, evidence and a suggested coordination step), checked_intents, blocking (true when any finding is HIGH), and the active policy. To record a decision about overlap, use record_assessment or resolve_conflict instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
intentNoFree-form summary of work not yet published, for a what-if check. Provide this or intent_id. Passing an intent id here is rejected; use intent_id.
scopesNoScopes to compare, each with the operation you would perform. With intent text, these are the proposed scopes. With intent_id, non-empty scopes replace the intent's own for this check only.
agent_idNoOptional caller agent id. Informational only; it does not change which work is compared.
intent_idNoA published intent (int_...) to check. Provide this or intent.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.4.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / agent_id / description
      Added value: +"Optional caller agent id. Informational only; it does not change which work is compared."
    • addedInput schema / properties / intent / description
      Added value: +"Free-form summary of work not yet published, for a what-if check. Provide this or intent_id. Passing an intent id here is rejected; use intent_id."
    • addedInput schema / properties / intent_id / description
      Added value: +"A published intent (int_...) to check. Provide this or intent."
    • addedInput schema / properties / scopes / description
      Added value: +"Scopes to compare, each with the operation you would perform. With intent text, these are the proposed scopes. With intent_id, non-empty scopes replace the intent's own for this check only."
    • addedInput schema / properties / scopes / items / properties / key / description
      Added value: +"The name within that kind, for example PaymentService, POST /orders, or src/billing.rs. Comparison is case-insensitive."
    • addedInput schema / properties / scopes / items / properties / kind / description
      Added value: +"What sort of thing the scope names: a code symbol, an API route, a data schema, a config key, infrastructure, a test, a migration, an environment variable, a file path, a component, a contract, or a broader domain."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only: nothing is stored' and adds the key ep heral nuance that findings carry ephemeral eph_ ids and are not recorded. It also discloses when block ing is true and that persisted conflicts are OPEN or COORDINATING. This substantially exceeds annotation coverage.

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 dense and information-rich, yet each sentence carries a distinct purpose: purpose, read-only guarantee, two usage modes, return fields, and alternatives. There is no filler or repetition. The structure moves logically from 'what' to 'when' to 'how' to 'instead', keeping all critical facts front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with no output schema, the description admirably covers return semantics (conf licts, checked intents, block ing flag, active policy), id formats, status filters, ephemer ality, and exclusions. An agent has enough context to know when to call it, how to invoke each mode, and what the results mean. Nothing important is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although the schema is fully described (100% coverage), the description adds critical semantic guidance beyond the schema: it explains that intent text with scopes is a what-if check against a specific status range, that intent_id alone pists only OPEN/COORDINATING conflicts, and that intent_id with non-empty scopes replaces the intents' scopes for that check only. This is far more than the schema alone provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Ask whether planned work collides with other agents' active work'. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools like record_assessment and resolve_conflict by naming them as alternatives for recording decisions. This makes the tool's identity clear and unique among its siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use each mode: intent_id alone before publish_changeset and run_verification, intent text with scopes for a what-if check, and intent_id with replacement scopes. It also tells the agent which tools to use instead when the goal is to record a decision. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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