Skip to main content
Glama

Merge Career Items

kb_merge_entities
DestructiveIdempotent

Merge duplicate Career KB items by folding one into another of the same kind: everything on merge_id moves to keep_id, which keeps its title, dates, and status.

Instructions

Fold one Career KB item into another of the same kind, the cure for a duplicate an import split off: merge_id goes, keep_id stays. Everything on merge_id moves to keep_id: its bullets in every state (approved, drafts, retired, and the wordings folded into a bullet), its evidence documents, and its record of which resumes its bullets were copied into.

keep_id keeps its own title, dates, status and notes. A field keep_id has blank (org,
start or end date, notes) is filled from merge_id, except the end date of an ongoing item,
and a detail key keep_id lacks is taken from merge_id. Lost: merge_id's title, its status,
its creation record, and each value of it where keep_id already holds a different one.
Bullets are not de-duplicated: one both items carried is there twice afterwards
(kb_combine_points folds them into one). Resumes are not edited. There is no unmerge.
The merge written is the user's decision about the two items; the server does not check
that the user agreed (a convention, not enforcement).

Refused: the same id twice, items of different kinds, `extra` items from different
sections, and an archived keep_id (400; an archived merge_id is fine), an unknown id
(404), and a merge of the same item running at once (409). Returns keep_id's detail,
kb_get_entity's shape.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keep_idYes
merge_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.12.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations carry destructiveHint/idempotentHint, but the description goes well beyond them: it enumerates what migrates (bullets in all states, evidence documents, resume-copy records), what is destroyed (title, status, creation record, colliding values), and says outright 'There is no unmerge'. It also discloses failure conditions with status codes (400 archived keep_id, 404 unknown id, 409 concurrent merge), which the annotations do not cover.

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?

The critical fact ('merge_id goes, keep_id stays') and the duplicate-cure framing are front-loaded, and the paragraphs are logically ordered: effect, field-level rules, losses, refusal codes. It is dense rather than padded, though the run-on parentheticals (bullets in every state, end-date exception) make it longer and harder to scan than an ideal version.

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 destructive two-param merge with no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: direction of the fold, field-by-field conflict resolution, irreversible losses, error conditions, and the return value ('returns keep_id's detail, kb_get_entity's shape'). Nothing material is deferred to an unstated assumption.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the param meaning and it does: keep_id is the survivor and keeps its title/dates/status/notes while absorbing blanks and missing detail keys, merge_id is consumed and its contents moved. The blank-filling rule and the ongoing-end-date exception give semantics far beyond two bare strings.

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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Fold one Career KB item into another of the same kind') and immediately fixes the direction with 'merge_id goes, keep_id stays'. It also names the sibling that handles a different part of the problem (kb_combine_points) and the read sibling whose shape is returned (kb_get_entity), so no ambiguity remains.

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?

The target scenario is explicit ('the cure for a duplicate an import split off'), the alternative is named for the adjacent job ('one both items carried is there twice afterwards (kb_combine_points folds them into one)'), and the exclusions are enumerated as a refusal list. It adds an operational instruction to the agent too: the merge is the user's decision and the server does not verify consent, so the agent must confirm before calling.

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