Skip to main content
Glama

codemerge_abandon

Abandon a stuck merge session to release its file claims and stop blocking other sessions. Safely closes sessions that cannot be merged, while refusing completed ones.

Instructions

Close a session for good, so its files stop blocking everyone else.

This is the way OUT of a session that will not be merged under its own lock — including the case an agent hits routinely: the branch was integrated by some other route (a merge harness holding its own lock), so codemerge_merge refuses with reason='main_moved' and the session is stranded in 'active', which codemerge_finish will not accept. Until it is abandoned, its claimed files are reported as conflicts to every later session, with no expiry — so closing it is what keeps codemerge_check worth consulting.

What it does, stated exactly: the session's claim rows are NOT deleted, they stop being reported, because the conflict query selects on session status. The merge lock is released only if this session holds it.

Re-issuing it is safe: a second call on an already-abandoned session changes nothing but the timestamps. A 'done' session is REFUSED — that would erase the record of a merge that succeeded — and an unknown session_id is an error.

Args:

  • session_id: The merge session ID. Whatever session is NAMED is the one closed; nothing ties it to the caller, so passing a stale or mistyped id closes someone else's work.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
session_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: claim rows are NOT deleted but stop being reported because the conflict query selects on session status; the merge lock is released only if this session holds it; re-issuing is safe; done sessions are refused; unknown ids error. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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 long but densely packed with necessary caveats and edge cases for a destructive-looking operation. It is structured with a headline, motivation, exact-behavior explanation, and parameter warning. Minor redundancy about files blocking others appears twice, but overall every section 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?

For a one-parameter, high-stakes state-changing tool with no annotations, the description is thorough: it covers semantics, side effects, idempotency, refusal conditions, error behavior, and the caller-identity risk. An output schema exists, so documenting return values is unnecessary; nothing an agent needs to invoke this safely is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does: session_id names the exact session to close, nothing ties it to the caller, and a stale or mistyped id closes someone else's work. This adds crucial semantics far beyond the bare schema string type.

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 states a specific verb and resource: close/abandon a merge session so its claimed files stop blocking others. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by name — codemerge_merge refuses with reason='main_moved', codemerge_finish will not accept the stranded session — so an agent can tell exactly what this tool is for.

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 explains precisely when to use this tool: as the way out when a session cannot be merged under its own lock, including the routine main_moved case where codemerge_finish rejects the session. It also gives exclusions: a 'done' session is refused and an unknown session_id is an error.

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

Latest Blog Posts

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/faxik/codebugs'

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