Mark

Resolve CMS Conflict

resolve_cms_conflict

Destructive

Settles a website CMS conflict on a blog, FAQ or competitor post, the same choice as the review page buttons. Read get_post first: website.state is conflict and website.conflictDiff lists each changed field with its CMS value (cms) and Mark's value (mark). Show the user that diff and only call this when they have chosen. overwrite replaces the CMS page with Mark's version and discards the edits made in the CMS. On an approved or scheduled post Mark sends it now (outcome overwrite_queued); on a post not yet approved Mark overwrites on the next send_cms_preview or approval (overwrite_on_next_send); on a post whose last send failed, retrying that send overwrites (overwrite_on_retry). keep leaves the CMS page as it is (outcome kept). The post is then out of sync (website.state out_of_sync) and its review note says Mark kept the CMS version. Refused when the post is not waiting on a CMS conflict choice. Related: get_post, send_cms_preview, approve_posts.

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": {
      "postId": "<postId>",
      "choice": "<choice>"
    },
    "name": "resolve_cms_conflict"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`choice`	Yes	overwrite: replace the CMS page with Mark's version, discarding the CMS edits. keep: leave the CMS page as it is; the post becomes out_of_sync.
`postId`	Yes	The website post in conflict.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`outcome`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 2, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / outcome / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "overwrite_queued",
-  "overwrite_on_next_send",
-  "kept"
-]New value: +[
+  "overwrite_queued",
+  "overwrite_on_next_send",
+  "overwrite_on_retry",
+  "kept"
+]

AddedOct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description goes beyond them by explaining precisely what is destroyed ('discards the edits made in the CMS') and that keep leaves the post out_of_sync with a review note. It also discloses state-dependent outcomes (overwrite_queued, overwrite_on_next_send, overwrite_on_retry), which is real added value. A small gap remains around whether the action is reversible.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the prerequisite read, then branches by choice and post state. Dense but every sentence carries operational meaning; slightly long for a two-parameter tool, though the verbosity is largely justified by the state matrix.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description still covers prerequisites, both choices' consequences, per-state outcomes, and the refusal case — complete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum values are already documented in the schema, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns extra credit by mapping each choice to concrete downstream outcomes per post state, giving the agent meaning the schema does not capture.

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 and resource: 'Settles a website CMS conflict' on a blog, FAQ or competitor post, and anchors it to the review page buttons. This is clearly distinct from siblings like edit_published_post or approve_posts, which do not resolve conflicts.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit prerequisites: 'Read get_post first', 'Show the user that diff and only call this when they have chosen'. It also names the exact refusal condition ('not waiting on a CMS conflict choice') and lists related tools, leaving nothing to inference.

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

All Mark 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?