Skip to main content
Glama
naw103

Foremerge

by naw103
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

Get an intent

get_intent
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve an intent's full status, scopes, and open conflicts by ID to assess related work before acting.

Instructions

Read one intent by id, with its owning agent and the count and ids of its OPEN or COORDINATING conflicts (check_conflicts with intent_id shows severity). Use it to see an intent's current status (INTENT, CLAIMED, IN_PROGRESS, PROVISIONAL, VALIDATED, ACCEPTED, COMMITTED or DISCARDED), declared scopes and depends_on, for example before assessing someone else's related work. Read-only. Use query_work to search intents by agent, status or scope, and status for everything at once.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe intent id (int_...).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Added value: +"The intent id (int_...)."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It goes beyond annotations by disclosing the return shape (conflict counts/ids, status enum, scopes, depends_on) and noting that severity requires check_conflicts.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by return details and sibling routing. Each sentence contributes distinct value.

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 single-parameter read tool with strong annotations and explicit sibling routing, the description covers the purpose, return contents, safety profile, and alternatives. No critical information an agent needs 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?

The schema already fully documents the single id parameter with format 'int_...'. The description mentions reading by id but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read one intent by id') and enumerates exactly what is returned: owning agent, OPEN/COORDINATING conflict count and ids, status, scopes, and depends_on. It also distinguishes itself from query_work and status explicitly.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use context ('before assessing someone else's related work') and explicitly routes to alternatives: query_work for searching by agent/status/scope and status for everything at once. This leaves little ambiguity about tool selection.

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