Frostbyte

signals_mark_reviewed

Mark a user signal reviewed with no task needed: it was worth reading and is kept as a record, unlike signals_dismiss. Project membership required.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "signalId": "<signalId>",
      "context": "<context>"
    },
    "name": "signals_mark_reviewed"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`reason`	No	Short note on what was learned or why no task, recorded in the decision history
`context`	Yes	Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): "Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization."
`signalId`	Yes	The signal ID
`projectId`	Yes	The project ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real context beyond that, namely that the signal is retained as a record and that project membership is a precondition. It does not address whether re-marking an already-reviewed signal is a no-op, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the action, then the rationale and the sibling contrast, with no filler. The trailing membership requirement is slightly tacked on but still earns its place.

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?

For a non-destructive state-change tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the key extras: permanence of the record and the membership prerequisite. Only idempotency behavior on repeat calls is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters, including the analytics-constrained 'context' and the 'reason' note, are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Mark a user signal reviewed') plus the outcome (kept as a record, no task created), and explicitly contrasts with the sibling signals_dismiss. An agent can distinguish this from signals_dismiss/signals_update without reading any schema.

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 a clear usage condition ('no task needed: it was worth reading') and names the contrasting alternative signals_dismiss. It stops short of covering other adjacent siblings such as signals_update or signals_link_task, so it is not a full when/when-not map.

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

All Frostbyte tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?