Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
naw103

Foremerge

by naw103
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

Record integration commit

record_commit

Records where an accepted ChangeSet landed after a Git or pull-request merge, verifies the landed commit contains the accepted work, and marks the ChangeSet COMMITTED.

Instructions

Record where accepted work finally landed, after it has been merged through ordinary Git or a pull request. Use it last, after accept_changeset and the merge. The commit must have the accepted commit in its history or, after a squash or rebase merge, hold every change the candidate made, checked path by path against their merge base; otherwise the call fails with TARGET_DIVERGED naming what is missing. On success it stores integration_commit, moves the ChangeSet to COMMITTED, and returns the updated ChangeSet, whose provenance.integration.method says how containment was shown (ancestor or content). accepted_commit is kept unchanged, so the record shows both what was verified and where it landed. Foremerge does not merge or push anything itself.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
git_refYesThe landed commit, as a SHA or ref such as main, resolved in the ChangeSet's worktree.
changeset_idYesAn ACCEPTED ChangeSet (chg_...).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.4.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / changeset_id / description
      Added value: +"An ACCEPTED ChangeSet (chg_...)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / git_ref / description
      Added value: +"The landed commit, as a SHA or ref such as main, resolved in the ChangeSet's worktree."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses behavior well beyond the annotations: it validates containment by ancestor or content, names the failure mode TARGET_DIVERGED, describes the state transition to COMMITTED, and explains the returned provenance.integration.method. It also clarifies that accepted_commit remains unchanged, making the record show both verification and final landing.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then moves into validation, success behavior, and a clarifying caveat. Despite being fairly dense, every sentence contributes material information for correct invocation.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description covers the important return behavior: the updated ChangeSet and its provenance.integration.method. It also covers failure behavior and state changes, so an agent has enough context to call the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the two parameters are already documented. The description still adds meaningful semantics by explaining how git_ref is validated against the accepted commit or, after squash/rebase, against the candidate changes path by path using the merge base.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: recording where accepted work landed after merge. It clearly distinguishes this tool from accept_changeset and the merge step by saying to use it last, after accept_changeset and the merge.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: after accepted work has been merged through ordinary Git or a pull request. It also states the key prerequisite and what happens when it is not met, failing with TARGET_DIVERGED, and clarifies that Foremerge does not merge or push itself.

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