Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIWorkhub

AIWorkhub

by shrec
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

aiworkhub_task_collision_guard

Read-only

Detect conflicting or overlapping work across active task cards before parallel AI workers start. Run this guard to surface collisions early and avoid duplicated or conflicting coding effort.

Instructions

Run the task collision guard for active cards.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "aiworkhub_task_collision_guard"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
print_jsonNoAppend the full collision scan result as JSON after the summary lines; default true.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.12.67
    • addedInput schema / properties / print_json / description
      Added value: +"Append the full collision scan result as JSON after the summary lines; default true."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scope 'for active cards' beyond that; it does not explain what the guard scans, whether it has side effects on state, or any prerequisites, leaving the actual behavior opaque.

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 words. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but structurally it is efficient and clear.

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?

Although an output schema exists and return values need not be described, the definition still fails to explain what 'collision guard' means, what 'active cards' refers to, or when this scan should be run. For a tool with a distinct domain concept in its name, this leaves a significant contextual 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% and the single optional parameter print_json is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at baseline 3 when the schema already carries the burden.

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 description gives a specific verb and resource ('Run the task collision guard') and adds a scope ('for active cards'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'collision guard' is domain jargon and the description does not explain what a collision is or what the guard checks, so an agent cannot fully distinguish its purpose from other task-related siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tools it replaces. The only implied usage comes from the tool name and the phrase 'for active cards,' which is not enough to route reliably among the many task-management siblings.

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