Bisque Presentations

Resolve or reopen an Artifact comment thread

resolve_artifact_thread

Idempotent

Mark a comment thread resolved (resolved: true) or reopen it (resolved: false), as the agent. Allowed only on activated threads. Resolve after you have addressed the comment, usually after republishing the Artifact; reply first so the person can see what changed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`resolved`	Yes
`thread_id`	Yes	The thread id (thr_…).
`artifact_id`	Yes	The Artifact id (art_…).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`anchor`	Yes	Where the thread is pinned: kind element (selector, snapshot, slide), text (quote), or page.
`status`	Yes
`preview`	Yes
`mentions`	No
`thread_id`	Yes
`created_at`	Yes
`created_by`	Yes	Who wrote it: { kind: "user", uid, name, handle, avatarUrl } or { kind: "agent", principal, name, via }.
`updated_at`	No
`version_id`	No
`artifact_id`	Yes
`resolved_at`	No
`participants`	No
`message_count`	Yes
`version_number`	Yes
`agent_activated`	Yes	True once someone mentioned the agent; only then may the agent reply or resolve.
`last_message_at`	Yes
`root_message_id`	No

Schema Changelog

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

AddedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavior beyond these: the operation is performed 'as the agent,' only allowed on activated threads, and belongs to a reply-first workflow. This is meaningful context without contradicting the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences: the action, the prerequisite, and the recommended workflow sequence. Every sentence earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Given the simple boolean toggle, the existing output schema, and annotations covering idempotence and destructiveness, the description supplies the remaining context: activation requirement, agent identity, and ordering relative to replies and republishing. Nothing essential is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 67%, with thread_id and artifact_id already documented. The description explicitly explains the otherwise-undocumented 'resolved' boolean parameter as true for resolving and false for reopening, compensating for the schema gap.

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: 'Mark a comment thread resolved (resolved: true) or reopen it (resolved: false)' on an Artifact comment thread. It also notes 'as the agent,' which clarifies the acting identity and distinguishes this from thread creation, reply, and retrieval siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives concrete when-to-use guidance: resolve only after addressing the comment, usually after republishing the Artifact, and reply first so the person can see the change. It also states the activation prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternatives or why they should be ignored, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Bisque Presentations tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped into clear resource families (artifacts, artifact threads, presentations, channels) and descriptions explicitly redirect between create_artifact and create_presentation. The main potential confusion is create_presentation vs publish_narrated_presentation, since both produce presentations but differ in narration source; the descriptions do clarify this.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use snake_case verb_noun naming with consistent families like get_artifact, get_artifact_thread, and get_presentation_spec. publish_narrated_presentation is longer but still follows the verb_noun pattern, and there are no mixed casing styles or erratic naming conventions.

Tool Count4/5

19 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but the count is justified by four clear subdomains: artifacts, artifact threads, presentations, and channels. No tools are redundant, though the set is large enough to feel slightly heavy.

Completeness4/5

Artifacts have full CRUD plus sharing, and threads have create/read/list/reply/resolve. Presentations cover authoring spec, creation/publishing, status, analytics, and reading context, but there is no delete or explicit update endpoint for presentations and no exposed way to fetch mentionables; these are workable gaps rather than fatal ones.

Resources

Need Help?