Skip to main content
Glama
naw103

Foremerge

by naw103
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

Discard work

discard_work
Destructive

Abandon an unfinished intent you own to unblock others. Discards the intent, releases its claims, and dismisses open conflicts while keeping the history in the event log.

Instructions

Abandon one of your own intents that will not be finished, for example a duplicate or work another agent took over. It sets the intent to DISCARDED, releases all of its active claims, and dismisses its OPEN or COORDINATING conflicts so they stop blocking the other party. The history stays in the event log, but a discarded intent cannot be resumed; publish a new intent instead. Only the owner may discard, and not once the intent is ACCEPTED, COMMITTED or already DISCARDED. Returns the updated intent. To agree that two intents can coexist, use resolve_conflict instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonYesWhy the work is being abandoned. Required and recorded in the event log.
agent_idYesYour agent id (agt_...). Must own the intent.
intent_idYesThe intent (int_...) to discard.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.4.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / agent_id / description
      Added value: +"Your agent id (agt_...). Must own the intent."
    • addedInput schema / properties / intent_id / description
      Added value: +"The intent (int_...) to discard."
    • addedInput schema / properties / reason / description
      Added value: +"Why the work is being abandoned. Required and recorded in the event log."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying exact behavioral effects: setting intent to DISCARDED, releasing active claims, dismissing OPEN/COORDINATING conflicts, preserving history, and preventing resumption. It also discloses ownership and state restrictions, and notes the return value, giving the agent a complete mental model of side effects.

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?

The description is a single dense paragraph, but every sentence contributes meaningful operational detail: usage context, state effects, side effects, restrictions, return value, and the alternative tool. It is appropriately front-loaded and not padded, though slightly longer than minimal.

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 state-mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: valid states, ownership, side effects on claims and conflicts, irreversibility, event log behavior, and how to proceed instead. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it correctly is missing.

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%, with each parameter (reason, agent_id, intent_id) already documented clearly. The description adds context that reason is recorded and that only the owner can discard, but this mostly reinforces schema information rather than supplying substantial new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool abandons one of your own intents with concrete examples (duplicate, work taken over), and explicitly contrasts it with resolve_conflict. It names the resource (intent) and the primary effect (set to DISCARDED), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without ambiguity.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: for unfinished intents that are duplicates or taken over by another agent. It also names the alternative tool (resolve_conflict) and states when not to use this tool, such as ACCEPTED, COMMITTED, or already DISCARDED intents, plus ownership requirements.

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