Skip to main content
Glama
AgentCanon MCP
by touhi13

preview_sync

Computes deterministic agent projections, detects manual drift or conflicts, and returns an approval-bound planId with file diffs to review before applying changes.

Instructions

Computes deterministic agent projections, checks for manual drift/conflicts, and returns an approval-bound planId with file diffs.

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": "preview_sync"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetsNo
projectRootNo
allowOverwriteConflictsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the tool checks for manual drift/conflicts and returns an approval-bound planId with file diffs, which implies a non-mutating preview. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, describe side effects, permissions, or what happens when conflicts are detected.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Each clause contributes to purpose, behavior, or return artifact.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the definition covers the general purpose and return artifact but omits parameter guidance and an explicit relationship to apply_sync. It is only partially complete for a three-parameter planning tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the three parameters: targets, projectRoot, or allowOverwriteConflicts. The phrases 'agent projections' and 'manual drift/conflicts' vaguely gesture at targets and conflict handling but give no formats, defaults, or behavioral effects.

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 states specific actions: computing agent projections, checking drift/conflicts, and returning an approval-bound planId with file diffs. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling apply_sync beyond the word 'preview' and the approval-bound planId.

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 mention of an 'approval-bound planId' implies this is a preview step before apply_sync, but the description does not explicitly say when to use it versus apply_sync or when not to use it. The agent must infer the workflow from context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.