Fixter

Set Problem Priority

set_issue_priority

Idempotent

Set the priority of one or more problems (list_issues with kind PROBLEM) by hand, or clear it so the computed priority applies again. Fixter otherwise computes the priority, shown as Urgent, High, Medium or Low, from the harm it measured: the share of an operation's requests the problem failed, else the share of work it failed with what that cost, else the users who hit it, else how many days it recurred. list_issues orders problems by priority, then the measured ones before the ones only their recurrence ranked, then the most recently opened first. A priority set here stays until it is cleared with NONE, which returns to the computed one. Takes 1 to 50 fingerprints; every fingerprint comes back with its priority now, whether it was set by hand and why, NOT_FOUND when it is not a problem the caller can see, or ERROR when setting that one failed.

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": {
      "fingerprints": "<fingerprints>",
      "priority": "<priority>"
    },
    "name": "set_issue_priority"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`priority`	Yes	URGENT, HIGH, MEDIUM or LOW to set it by hand, or NONE to clear it
`fingerprints`	Yes	The problem fingerprints (from list_issues with kind PROBLEM), 1 to 50 of them

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write; the description adds the durability rule (the override persists until cleared with NONE), the per-fingerprint outcome model including partial failures reported as ERROR, and visibility-based NOT_FOUND. It also explains the computed-priority baseline that the manual override replaces, which is exactly the context an agent needs to judge consequences.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The operative instruction is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the block explaining how Fixter computes priority and how list_issues orders problems is tangential to invoking this tool and inflates the paragraph considerably. That ordering detail does not earn its place in a description of a priority-setting call.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract itself and does so fully: every fingerprint returns its current priority, whether it was hand-set and why, plus NOT_FOUND and ERROR outcomes. For a two-parameter batch mutation, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is absent.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning: NONE is defined behaviorally as 'returns to the computed one' rather than just an enum option, the 1-to-50 fingerprint bound is reinforced, and fingerprints are tied back to list_issues with kind PROBLEM.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Set the priority of one or more problems') plus the dual mode ('by hand, or clear it'). It explicitly identifies the resource as 'list_issues with kind PROBLEM', which an agent can map directly to a sibling tool.

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?

It clearly states the when: overriding the computed priority manually, or restoring it with NONE, and points to list_issues with kind PROBLEM as the fingerprint source. What's missing is any differentiation from near siblings such as set_issue_status or fix_issue, so an agent juggling issue-state tools gets no explicit routing guidance.

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

All Fixter 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?