Skip to main content
Glama
naw103

Foremerge

by naw103
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

Resolve a persisted conflict

resolve_conflict

Record an audited resolution decision for a cfl_* conflict to clear the acceptance gate and unblock work after both parties agree.

Instructions

Record an audited resolution decision for a durable cfl_* conflict so blocked work can proceed. Over MCP only an agent whose intent is a party may resolve it, and the decision is recorded under its agent id. Foremerge does not verify agreement or message ids, so either party can clear the gate alone: resolve only after the other party agrees. Use coordinate_with_agent first to reach that agreement, and discard_work instead when one side is simply dropping its work. Resolving moves the conflict to RESOLVED, which clears it from the acceptance gate for both intents; it does not change any code. It fails if the conflict is already resolved or dismissed. Returns the updated conflict.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agent_idYesYour agent id (agt_...). Your intent must be one of the conflict's two parties.
rationaleYesWhy this resolves the clash, naming the msg_ ids where you agreed it. Must be non-empty; its content is not checked.
resolutionYesShort title for the agreed outcome, for example sequenced: provider abstraction lands first, or split scopes. No fixed vocabulary.
conflict_idYesThe conflict to resolve (cfl_...), from check_conflicts, publish_intent or status.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.4.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / agent_id / description
      Added value: +"Your agent id (agt_...). Your intent must be one of the conflict's two parties."
    • addedInput schema / properties / conflict_id / description
      Added value: +"The conflict to resolve (cfl_...), from check_conflicts, publish_intent or status."
    • addedInput schema / properties / rationale / description
      Added value: +"Why this resolves the clash, naming the msg_ ids where you agreed it. Must be non-empty; its content is not checked."
    • addedInput schema / properties / resolution / description
      Added value: +"Short title for the agreed outcome, for example sequenced: provider abstraction lands first, or split scopes. No fixed vocabulary."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With only generic annotations (all false), the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that agreement and message ids are not verified, that either party may resolve alone, the state transition to RESOLVED, the effect on both intents' acceptance gates, that code is not changed, failure conditions, and the return value. This goes far beyond what annotations provide.

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 information-dense yet every sentence earns its place: purpose, access constraint, safety warning, alternatives, side effects, failure mode, and return value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids filler, making it easy for an agent to scan and apply.

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?

Given the tool's mutation semantics, the lack of an output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is complete. It covers the state change, failure conditions, constraints, and what is returned. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool safely and correctly without needing additional details.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters in detail. The description adds some operational context (e.g., only a party may resolve, decision recorded under agent id), but it does not materially extend parameter meaning beyond what the schema's property descriptions already state. 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 states a specific action ('Record an audited resolution decision') on a specific resource ('durable cfl_* conflict') and explains the goal ('so blocked work can proceed'). It also differentiates from discard_work, making the tool's unique role unmistakable.

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 tells the agent when to use the tool ('resolve only after the other party agrees'), which tool to use first ('Use coordinate_with_agent first'), and which alternative to choose instead ('discard_work instead when one side is simply dropping its work'). This is clear, actionable guidance with exclusions and alternatives.

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