Marks a thread as resolved (or reopens it via resolved=false). The thread stays visible but filterable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resolved | Yes | true = resolve, false = reopen | |
| threadId | Yes | ||
| expectedProjectId | No | UUID of the project targeted by THIS call. ACTUALLY targets this project instead of the session project. Refused without changing anything if access is not granted. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / expectedProjectId / descriptionPrevious value: -"UUID du projet visé par CET appel. Cible RÉELLEMENT ce projet au lieu du projet de session. Refusé sans rien modifier si l'accès n'est pas accordé."New value: +"UUID of the project targeted by THIS call. ACTUALLY targets this project instead of the session project. Refused without changing anything if access is not granted."Input schema / properties / resolved / descriptionPrevious value: -"true = résoudre, false = rouvrir"New value: +"true = resolve, false = reopen"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, potentially destructive mutation, but the description adds important behavioral context: the thread remains visible and only becomes filtered. It also explains that resolved=false reopens, which is useful beyond the annotation flags. It does not mention permissions or project targeting, but those are partly covered by 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with no wasted words. The core action and the reopen alternative are front-loaded, and the visibility note comes after the essential operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple state-toggle tool with annotations covering mutation safety and schema coverage for most parameters, the description is nearly complete. The main missing piece is explicit routing to alternatives such as delete_comment, but that does not prevent correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents resolved and expectedProjectId. The description restates the resolved boolean semantics but adds no detail for threadId or expectedProjectId beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb and resource: 'Marks a thread as resolved.' It also clarifies the inverse operation via resolved=false, making the tool's scope distinct from comment-related siblings like delete_comment or add_comment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the resolution/reopen semantics, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives such as delete_comment or reply_comment, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.