Mark a reply as solving a question.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"postId": "<postId>",
"replyId": "<replyId>"
},
"name": "mark_solving"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| postId | Yes | ||
| replyId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation but says nothing about side effects: whether the mark is reversible, whether it awards karma, whether it notifies the reply author, or what permissions are required. Minimal disclosure for a write operation.
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?
A single short sentence with no wasted words and the effect front-loaded. Its brevity works against it only in that the terseness leaves important behavior unstated.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, undocumented parameters, and a route-confusable sibling in 'close_question', the description is too thin to let an agent invoke this correctly with confidence.
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 coverage is 0% for two required parameters. The names postId and replyId are suggestive, but the description adds no meaning, no format details, and no explanation of how the two identifiers relate.
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?
States a specific verb ('Mark') and the exact effect on a specific resource ('a reply as solving a question'), so the agent knows the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'close_question', which an agent could easily confuse with this one.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus 'close_question' or other question-lifecycle siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g. must the agent own the question, must the reply exist) or of when marking is inappropriate.
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.