Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Nexus Relay

Nexus Relay

by pironjulien
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

file_reservation_paths

Reserve absolute file, folder, or pattern paths with a reason, TTL, and exclusive or shared access to prevent conflicting edits between agents.

Instructions

Same as reserve, under the mcp_agent_mail name and parameters.

Args: paths: ABSOLUTE paths: files, folders or patterns. reason: why, in one sentence. ttl_seconds: duration in seconds (rounded up to the minute, 1 min to 24 h). exclusive: False = shared. project_key: accepted for compatibility, ignored (paths are absolute). agent_name: accepted for compatibility, ignored (the relay knows who you are).

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": {
      "paths": "<paths>"
    },
    "name": "file_reservation_paths"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathsYes
reasonNo
exclusiveNo
agent_nameNo
project_keyNo
ttl_secondsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.8.7

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. Beyond that it adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: TTL is rounded up to the minute and clamped to 1 minute–24 hours, `exclusive=False` yields a shared reservation, and `project_key`/`agent_name` are silently ignored because the relay identifies the caller. It omits only what happens when paths are already reserved by another agent.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the compatibility statement, then a compact per-argument list with no filler. The one wasted element is the "Same as `reserve`" framing, which conveys less than the Args block that follows it.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a mutation-style coordination tool with six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations describing return shape, the description should say what a successful reservation returns and how conflicts or existing reservations are reported. It documents inputs well but leaves the observable outcome and failure modes unstated.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it covers all six parameters: paths must be ABSOLUTE, reason is one sentence, ttl_seconds is bounded and rounded, exclusive maps to shared vs. exclusive, and two parameters are accepted-but-ignored for compatibility. The `exclusive` line is terse ("False = shared") and leaves the True/default=exclusive case to inference, which keeps it from a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opener defines the tool only by reference to another tool ("Same as `reserve`"), so an agent must already know what `reserve` does. The Args block does reveal that it takes absolute file/folder/pattern paths with a TTL and an exclusivity flag, implying a scoped file-lock operation, but the description never states the verb+resource outcome in its own words.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus `reserve`, `release_file_reservations`, or `reservations`, beyond the throwaway "Same as `reserve`, under the mcp_agent_mail name" framing. No prerequisites, no when-not-to-use, and no conflict-handling guidance.

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