dismiss_conflictClear one hit as not-a-threat. Reversible — it moves to the Cleared list.
Takes `jurisdiction` and `app_no` exactly as they appear on a conflict in the
user's conflict list. A cleared hit, such as an unrelated business or the user's
own filing, stops being surfaced.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_no | Yes | ||
| applicant | No | ||
| mark_text | No | ||
| jurisdiction | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the action is reversible and the hit moves to the Cleared list, where it stops being surfaced. Auth requirements and rate limits are not mentioned.
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?
Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the effect ('Clear one hit as not-a-threat') before the parameter sourcing rules. The final sentence overlaps somewhat with the opening but adds a concrete example of what a cleared hit looks like.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: the state change, its reversibility, and how to source the required identifiers. The main gaps are the two optional parameters and any permission requirements.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain that jurisdiction and app_no must match 'exactly as they appear on a conflict in the user's conflict list,' which is real value, but it says nothing about the optional applicant and mark_text parameters, leaving half the parameters undocumented.
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: 'Clear one hit as not-a-threat,' and contrasts it with the conflict list it draws from. It is clearly distinct from listing siblings like my_conflicts or screening tools like screen_mark, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
It implies the usage context (a hit appearing on the user's conflict list, such as an unrelated business or the user's own filing) but never states when to use this versus alternatives, nor any exclusion or prerequisite. Guidance is inferable rather than explicit.
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.