Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agentbus

agentbus

by onicarps
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

agentbus_lock_acquire

Acquire an exclusive advisory lease on a workspace resource to prevent concurrent access conflicts.

Instructions

Acquire an exclusive advisory lease on a workspace resource.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "resource": "<resource>",
      "owner_id": "<owner_id>"
    },
    "name": "agentbus_lock_acquire"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
owner_idYes
resourceYes
auth_tokenNo
ttl_secondsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.17.0
  2. Removedv0.16.3
  3. Addedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states that the lease is 'exclusive' and 'advisory,' but lacks details on what happens if the lock is already held, side effects, or return behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, which is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and an output schema; it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, output schema, no annotations), the description fails to cover return values, failure modes, or how to use the parameters, leaving significant gaps.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (owner_id, resource, auth_token, ttl_seconds), providing no added meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Acquire' and clearly identifies the resource as 'exclusive advisory lease on a workspace resource,' which distinguishes it from siblings like lock_release, lock_renew, and lock_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lock_release or lock_renew, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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