Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIWorkhub

AIWorkhub

by shrec
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

aiworkhub_manager_semantic_edit_prepare

MANAGER EDIT: bind one verified file range before changing it.

Instructions

MANAGER EDIT: bind one verified file range before changing it.

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>",
      "start_line": "<start_line>",
      "end_line": "<end_line>"
    },
    "name": "aiworkhub_manager_semantic_edit_prepare"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
end_lineYesLast line of the range to bind, 1-based and inclusive.
file_pathYesRepo-relative path of an existing UTF-8 file; absolute paths, parent-directory escapes, .git and .aiworkhub are refused.
start_lineYesFirst line of the range to bind, 1-based and inclusive.
include_fragmentNotrue forces the range text into the reply even if an earlier prepare already delivered the same unchanged range; default false.
expected_last_lineNoExact text of the range's last line; a mismatch refuses the prepare and reports the real line. Omit to skip the check.
expected_first_lineNoExact text of the range's first line; a mismatch refuses the prepare and reports the real line. Omit to skip the check.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.12.67
    • addedInput schema / properties / end_line / description
      Added value: +"Last line of the range to bind, 1-based and inclusive."
    • addedInput schema / properties / expected_first_line / description
      Added value: +"Exact text of the range's first line; a mismatch refuses the prepare and reports the real line. Omit to skip the check."
    • addedInput schema / properties / expected_last_line / description
      Added value: +"Exact text of the range's last line; a mismatch refuses the prepare and reports the real line. Omit to skip the check."
    • addedInput schema / properties / file_path / description
      Added value: +"Repo-relative path of an existing UTF-8 file; absolute paths, parent-directory escapes, .git and .aiworkhub are refused."
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_fragment / description
      Added value: +"true forces the range text into the reply even if an earlier prepare already delivered the same unchanged range; default false."
    • addedInput schema / properties / start_line / description
      Added value: +"First line of the range to bind, 1-based and inclusive."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is not read-only, not destructive, and closed-world. The description adds that a range is 'verified' and bound before a change, but it does not explain what a binding is, whether it persists, or how it relates to the subsequent apply step. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. The 'MANAGER EDIT:' prefix helps categorize the tool quickly. It is very terse, but conciseness itself is strong.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool is a stateful prepare step with six parameters and an output schema, and it likely pairs with semantic_edit_apply. The description does not explain the prepare/apply workflow, what binding means, or what the agent should do after a successful prepare. Even with rich schema and annotation coverage, this leaves an important workflow gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters, including expected_first_line and expected_last_line verification, are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries this burden.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description gives a specific verb and resource: bind one verified file range. It also frames the tool as a preparatory edit step before changing the file. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling semantic_edit_apply, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'before changing it' implies this should be used prior to a file modification, which gives some usage context. However, it never names the follow-up tool, states prerequisites, or explains when not to use it. Usage guidance is therefore implied rather than explicit.

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