ODocs.co

Resolve Comment

resolve-comment

Marks a comment thread on an ODocs.co document resolved, or re-opens it with resolved:false. Resolved threads are not counted in openCommentCount. The optional note is recorded as a reply before the thread closes, so people can see what was done. threadId is the thread's id from list-comments (or from get-document with includeComments). Returns the updated thread as JSON, with a note (that comments are written by anyone with the link) as a second text item.

Tool call template

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "threadId": "<threadId>"
    },
    "name": "resolve-comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Document ID
`note`	No	Optional note recorded as a reply before the thread closes, e.g. "rewrote the intro as asked"
`author`	No	Name shown on your edits and comments (e.g. "Claude via Greg"), with a robot mark as an agent. Invisible and text-direction characters are removed, line breaks and control characters become spaces, and it is cut to 256 characters. A name that resembles ODocs.co or Octaria (including look-alike spellings) is shown as "Agent (Anonymous)". When any of that happens the result has a `warning` field saying what changed.
`resolved`	No	false re-opens the thread. Default true (resolve).
`threadId`	Yes	Comment thread ID (a thread's id in list-comments results)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses the side effect on openCommentCount, the ordering guarantee that the note is written as a reply before the thread closes, and that the response is the updated thread plus a second text item warning that anyone with the link can comment. That security/permission context is exactly the kind of information the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint flags cannot convey.

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?

Four dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and each sentence carrying real information. The closing sentence is slightly congested with the parenthetical about comment permissions, but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return value (updated thread JSON plus a second text item). Combined with side effects, id sourcing, and re-open semantics, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly for a 5-parameter mutation tool.

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?

With schema coverage at 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description genuinely adds meaning: the note is applied as a reply *before* closure, threadId's provenance is named, and resolved:false is defined as a re-open. The author parameter is left entirely to the schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb (marks resolved / re-opens) on a specific resource (a comment thread on an ODocs.co document), plus the exact flag that inverts the action. The scope is narrow enough that an agent can immediately tell it apart from create-comment or reply-to-comment.

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?

Gives clear usage context: use it to close a thread, pass resolved:false to re-open, and get threadId from list-comments or get-document with includeComments. It stops short of explicitly excluding adjacent tools (e.g. reply-to-comment for a reply without closing), so it is strong but not a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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

All ODocs.co tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?