Koskamo

Reopen a reported MCP issue

koskamo_reopen_mcp_issue

Destructive

Reopen a reported MCP server issue that the owner marked fixed or won't fix but that still fails. Takes the secret receipt handle from the report; each receipt can reopen once.

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": {
      "receipt_handle": "<receipt_handle>"
    },
    "name": "koskamo_reopen_mcp_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No	What still fails, with any secrets removed
`receipt_handle`	Yes	Secret receipt handle returned when the issue was reported

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issue`	Yes
`trust`	No
`listing_url`	No
`reported_at`	Yes
`receipt_expires_at`	Yes
`reopened_by_this_receipt`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by adding behavior annotations cannot express: the one-reopen-per-receipt limit and the fact that a secret credential is consumed. It does not say what state the issue moves to on success.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the triggering condition front-loaded before the parameter/constraint detail. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and with only two well-documented parameters the burden is light. The description covers precondition, credential, and one-shot semantics; only the post-reopen state transition is left unstated.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (including the optional 'note') are already documented at the field level; baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount beyond the schema by implying the receipt handle is single-use and must come from the original report, but adds nothing about the 'note' content beyond what the schema states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Reopen') and resource ('a reported MCP server issue') plus the exact precondition (owner marked fixed or won't fix but it still fails), which distinguishes it from koskamo_report_mcp_issue and koskamo_handle_mcp_issues. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Clear context for when to call: the issue must already have been reported and marked closed while still failing. The 'each receipt can reopen once' constraint also tells the agent this is a one-shot action. No explicit when-not-to-use (e.g., 'for a brand-new issue use report_mcp_issue instead') is given.

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

All Koskamo 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?