Skip to main content
Glama
naw103

Foremerge

by naw103
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

Run a trusted verification check

run_verification

Execute a trusted named check to validate a changeset before acceptance, returning pass/fail and execution details.

Instructions

Run one named check from the trusted Foremerge registry of the repository this store is bound to. Raw commands are intentionally not accepted over MCP, and the registry cannot be selected by the caller or the server's working directory. Use it after publish_changeset and before accept_changeset; acceptance relies on this result, not on tests you report yourself. The check's command runs in the ChangeSet's worktree with the registry's timeout. It may create only generated files excluded from the fingerprint: changing any other file fails with STALE_CHANGESET, and excluded files left from an earlier run fail with CHECK_FAILED before it starts. The worktree must still match the fingerprint recorded at publication, or the call fails with STALE_CHANGESET and you must publish again. A pass moves the ChangeSet to VALIDATED; a failure leaves or returns it to PROVISIONAL. Returns the validation record: whether it passed, the exit code, captured stdout and stderr, the duration, and the fingerprint it ran against.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
checkYesName of a check an operator registered with foremerge checks set, for example test. Unknown names are rejected.
changeset_idYesThe ChangeSet (chg_...) to verify. Must be PROVISIONAL or VALIDATED.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.4.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / changeset_id / description
      Added value: +"The ChangeSet (chg_...) to verify. Must be PROVISIONAL or VALIDATED."
    • addedInput schema / properties / check / description
      Added value: +"Name of a check an operator registered with foremerge checks set, for example test. Unknown names are rejected."
  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?

Annotations provide no hints (all false), so the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses side effects: may create generated files, moves state to VALIDATED or returns to PROVISIONAL, specific failure modes (STALE_CHANGESET, CHECK_FAILED), fingerprint requirements, and the registry timeout. This goes well beyond what annotations offer.

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?

Though lengthy, every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage timing, constraints, error conditions, state transitions, and return value are all covered. Front-loaded with purpose and usage, structured logically. No filler.

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-changing verification tool with error conditions and a return record, the description is complete. It covers prerequisites (fingerprint match), timing relative to siblings, error semantics, state outcomes, and the returned validation record. An agent can invoke it correctly without further info.

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 covers both parameters fully (100% coverage) with descriptions including format and state constraints. The description reiterates the changeset state requirement but adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 verb ('run') and resource ('one named check from the trusted Foremerge registry'), and explicitly differentiates from siblings by noting it is for verification between publish and accept, and that raw commands are not accepted. An agent can clearly identify this as the verification step.

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: 'Use it after publish_changeset and before accept_changeset; acceptance relies on this result, not on tests you report yourself.' Also says raw commands are not accepted, guiding away from any alternative that might accept free-form commands. No ambiguity.

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