Quilt

by wkoverfield

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.6.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: claiming, committing, editing, status queries, conflict resolution. No two tools serve overlapping functions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_status, commit_mine, quilt_edit). The naming convention is uniform.
Tool Count5/5
With 12 tools, the set is well-scoped for collaborative file editing: covering session management, claims, edits, commits, and conflict handling without bloat.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the core workflow (claim, edit, commit, release, resolve). Minor gaps exist (e.g., no undo/revert tool), but the essential operations are present.
Average 4.2/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 201 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 14, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool shows conflicts, implying read-only behavior, but does not disclose other behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, required state, or what happens with missing actor). Minimal transparency.
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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose. It hints at output (conflicts that were caught) but lacks details on result format. Still, it is sufficiently complete for a simple tool.
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% for the single parameter 'actor', which is well-documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('collisions that were caught'), clearly indicating it displays conflicts. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_my_changes' by focusing on overlapping changes rather than individual changes.
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 description implies use when checking for conflicts but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives among siblings like 'get_status' or 'get_my_changes'. The context is clear but guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Show', implying a read-only operation, but does not confirm no side effects, required permissions, or other behavioral traits.
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?
Two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives usage context. No extraneous information, well front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context to decide when to use it. It mentions what is shown (ownership, collisions, claims), but does not describe the output format or structure, which could help in selecting the tool.
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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds no additional meaning to the 'actor' parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool shows ownership of working-tree changes, collisions, and active claims, using specific verbs and a clear resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_my_changes and get_conflicts by covering all three aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says to call before editing and before committing, providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not specify when not to use or mention alternative tools for specific needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains behavior for different path inputs but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or permissions needed. Some behavioral context is given (release all vs. none), but it is limited.
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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and provides parameter usage without any fluff. Every word contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nesting), the description covers the essential actions and parameter behavior. It could elaborate on what 'release' means for the system state, but it is adequate for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (actor described, paths not). The description adds meaning to the 'paths' parameter: it explains what omitting vs. empty array means. The 'actor' parameter is already well-described in the schema.
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 the action 'release your claims' on given paths, providing a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'claim' by implication, but does not explicitly contrast with other sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit guidance on parameter usage: omit paths to release all, empty array releases none. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use the tool or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool replaces a unique old_string, records authorship exactly, and avoids attribution guesswork. It does not mention error handling or side effects but adds behavioral context beyond the schema.
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 very concise: one paragraph with no redundant words. It front-loads the purpose, explains the key benefit, and gives a usage tip. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
While parameters are well-covered and behavior is described, the description lacks context about the overall workflow (e.g., whether the edit is staged or auto-committed) and does not mention return values. For a file edit tool in a versioned system, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage. The description adds context for 'why' (ticket/task) and 'actor' (optional but useful for subagents), enhancing meaning beyond the schema definitions.
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 clearly states it edits a file by replacing an old string with a new one, and records authorship. It distinguishes from a raw editor but not explicitly from sibling tool 'quilt_write'. The verb 'edit' and resource 'file through Quilt' are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises to pass 'why' and prefer this over plain file edit when coordinating a fleet. It gives a clear usage context but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives like 'quilt_write'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: marks collision, closes flag, records audit trail. However, it does not mention reversibility, required permissions, or side effects beyond the stated actions. Given the lack of annotations, more detail would be beneficial, but the description is adequate.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and outcome. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is well-structured and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, usage context, and basic parameters. It lacks details on return value or confirmation, but for a straightforward state-modifying tool, it is reasonably complete.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for the parameters. It mentions the use context but does not elaborate on parameter formats or constraints.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Mark') and resource ('collision'), and explicitly describes the outcome ('closes its 'Needs you' flag and records the audit trail'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'claim' or 'escalate' by specifying the post-reconciliation use case.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use after you've merged or adapted', providing clear context for when to invoke. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the sibling list and context imply alternatives (e.g., 'escalate' for unresolved collisions).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses registration, session start, and pinning. With no annotations, more details on side effects (e.g., session duration, idempotency) would improve transparency. Not misleading but lacks depth.
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?
Two sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.
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?
Covers main purpose and usage but lacks parameter descriptions and return value hints. Adequate for a simple tool, but incomplete due to missing parameter semantics.
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?
Only the 'actor' parameter is contextualized in the description; 'name', 'type', and 'email' are left unexplained. Schema coverage is low (25%), but description only partially compensates.
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?
The description clearly states the tool registers an actor and starts a session, pinning the server to that identity. It distinguishes from siblings like claim or commit by being about session management, not content operations.
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?
Explicitly provides when to use (register actor and start session) and when not to (if sharing server, skip and pass actor per call). Offers an alternative approach.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: commits only owned hunks, leaves other actors' changes untouched, and auto-releases claims. However, it does not mention failure modes (e.g., conflicts) or whether it pushes, but the main traits are well-covered.
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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, earning a top score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context for the core use case. It explains the purpose, side effects (auto-release), and suggests a preview. It could mention edge cases or return values, but for a simple commit operation, it is adequate.
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 coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The tool description does not add new per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, so it remains at the baseline. The description's context about 'owned hunks' and 'auto-release' provides general context but not parameter-specific guidance.
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?
The description uses specific verbs and resources: 'Commit ONLY your owned hunks as an ordinary git commit'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like `preview_mine` (preview) and `claim` (claiming hunks), making its unique role evident.
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 description explicitly states when to use this tool (to land your own work in a shared checkout without affecting others' changes) and suggests previewing with `preview_mine`. It implicitly advises against using it when wanting to commit others' changes, providing clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the flagged item shows up under 'Needs you' until resolved, adding useful behavioral context. While it doesn't detail side effects or permissions, the description sufficiently discloses the tool's impact for a flagging action.
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 two sentences plus a parenthetical example, with every sentence adding value. It front-loads the purpose clearly and avoids any filler, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate context: purpose, when to use, and a behavioral note. It could optionally mention what happens after escalation, but the 'Needs you' note covers the immediate outcome. It is complete enough for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.
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 the baseline is 3. The tool's description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The example in the description provides context for 'reason' and 'target', but does not elaborate on syntax or usage beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
The description clearly states the tool flags a collision that cannot be reconciled for a human, with a concrete example (two opposed intents on the same line). It distinguishes itself from forcing a change through, which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'commit_mine' or 'resolve'.
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 description explicitly tells when to use the tool (when reconciliation is impossible, specifically when a denied claim's holderIntent conflicts with yours) and what not to do (force a change through). This provides clear context for selecting this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description implies read-only behavior by describing listing of own changes. Lacks explicit mention of auth or side effects, but clear enough.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given simple tool with one optional param and no output schema, description covers behavior, output content, and alternatives completely.
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 covers parameter fully (100%). Description does not add extra meaning beyond schema, so baseline 3.
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?
The description clearly states the tool lists changes owned by the user, with specifics (files, hunks, line counts). It distinguishes from siblings like get_status and preview_mine.
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?
Explicitly recommends use before committing and directs to alternatives: get_status for ownership across actors, preview_mine for patch preview.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description fully bears the burden. It clearly states the tool is a dry run ('nothing is written') and describes the output content (unified diff, files, totals), leaving no ambiguity about side effects.
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?
Two pithy sentences that front-load the primary purpose and immediately clarify it is a dry run. Every phrase earns its place.
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?
Given no output schema, the description compensates by explaining what the tool shows (diff, files, totals). It provides a complete picture for an agent to decide to invoke it.
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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Show the exact patch commit_mine would create right now' and is a dry run. It distinguishes from the sibling tool commit_mine by emphasizing it's a preview.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Review it before commit_mine to confirm you are committing your lines and nothing else.' This tells the agent when to use it relative to its sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: how claims bind edits, denial behavior (holder intent), wait/queue mechanisms, and symbol creation rules. No contradictions.
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 relatively long but each sentence adds essential information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slight verbosity could be structured more concisely, but overall effective.
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?
With 6 parameters, no output schema, and complexity around path formats and collision handling, the description covers all necessary behavioral aspects, edge cases, and parameter usage thoroughly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is high (83%), but the description adds significant value beyond schema by explaining path formats, intent purpose, and behavior of wait/queue parameters. It clarifies the 'creating' flag's effect on symbol claims.
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?
The description explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Reserve files BEFORE you edit them' and explains that a claim binds external edits to the actor ID. It distinguishes from siblings by being the reservation/lock tool for editing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on when to use the tool (before editing) and explains different path patterns for files, directories, and symbols. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives but the usage context is well defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly explains authorship recording, attribution exactness, and the denial behavior when another agent holds the path. However, it lacks details on atomicity or error handling.
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 paragraph of four sentences, each adding essential information. It front-loads the main purpose, then provides usage guidelines and behavioral notes. No redundant or superfluous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool without output schema, the description adequately covers how to use, when to use, and what behavioral guarantees exist. It does not describe return values or error messages, but given the simplicity, it is mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the 'why' parameter's purpose ('your ticket/task') and the 'actor' parameter's auto-derivation logic and when to use an explicit ID. The 'path' and 'content' are sufficiently described.
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?
The description uses specific verbs ('Create or overwrite') and clearly identifies the resource ('a whole file through Quilt'). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'quilt_edit' by stating the scope ('new files' vs 'change part of an existing one').
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?
Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this for new files') and when to use the sibling ('use quilt_edit to change part of an existing one'). Also provides guidance on passing 'why' and warns about concurrent access denial.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![quilt MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wkoverfield/quilt/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wkoverfield/quilt)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![quilt MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wkoverfield/quilt/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wkoverfield/quilt)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/wkoverfield/quilt'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server