Skip to main content
Glama

Fix in worktree

grok_agent_fix

Launch an isolated workspace fixer session for confirmed findings in a task packet, apply fixes in a git worktree, and return typed receipts.

Instructions

Start a separate workspace fixer session scoped to confirmed findings in the task packet.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
laneNo
taskYes
transportNostdio

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.33.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / task / properties / timeout_seconds / maximum
      Previous value: -3600New value: +86400
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.26.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / task / properties / mount_paths
      Added value: +{
      +  "items": {
      +    "maxLength": 1024,
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "maxItems": 16,
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / task / properties / review_lane
      Added value: +{
      +  "maxLength": 96,
      +  "minLength": 1,
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  3. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds the useful 'separate workspace' isolation and bounded mutation scope, but omits that this launches an asynchronous, non-idempotent session requiring subsequent poll/status calls to observe progress.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, efficiently stating the action and scope. It is arguably over-terse for the complexity of the nested packet, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a tool whose only real payload is a large nested object, with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description omits the session lifecycle (start, then poll/status/cancel), permission profile, and packet construction guidance. The agent cannot construct a valid call from this description alone.

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 says nothing about lane, task, or transport. A ~25-field nested task packet is passed as the required argument, yet the description never mentions the packet structure, the required fields, or that role should be set to 'fix' for this tool. This is a substantial gap the description fails to compensate for.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: start a fixer session scoped to confirmed findings in a task packet. That distinguishes it reasonably from grok_agent_execute and grok_agent_review by naming the fix role and its input scope, but it never names those siblings explicitly and leaves the domain (code fixing in a worktree) implicit via the title only.

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?

'Scoped to confirmed findings in the task packet' hints that this is called after a review has confirmed findings, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many session/execute/review siblings. The agent must infer the pipeline position.

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