mergelock
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
| logging | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| checkA | Check a branch against another for textual and semantic merge conflicts. Returns a mergelock verdict (schema v1) with findings an agent can act on. |
| claimsA | List live claims (declared work scopes) from refs/mergelock/claims, newest first, so you can pick an area no other agent is working in. Read-only in v0.1. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: check runs a merge-conflict analysis on branches, while claims lists declared work scopes. An agent can easily tell which to use in a given situation with no overlap.
Both names are single lowercase words, but one is a verb (check) and the other a noun (claims), so there is no predictable verb_noun convention. It is readable but not a consistent pattern.
With only 2 tools the surface feels thin for a merge-lock/claim coordination system. It is defensible for a v0.1, but limited.
The claims tool is explicitly read-only in v0.1, so there is no way to declare or release a claim, and only a single conflict-check operation exists. Notable lifecycle gaps remain, though the descriptions acknowledge the v0.1 scope.