resolve_governance_alertMark a governance alert as resolved. This cannot be undone, and it does not fix what raised the alert. Alert IDs come from list_governance_alerts. Requires organization context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| alertId | Yes | Public ID (GUID) of the alert |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation already indicates destructiveHint, but the description adds that 'This cannot be undone' and 'it does not fix what raised the alert', providing additional behavioral context beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four short sentences, no redundancy, and all information is relevant. The description is well-structured and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers the main aspects: what it does, irreversibility, intended effect, source of IDs, and context requirement. Omits output details, but since there is no output schema, this is not critical. Leaves a small gap about what resolution means for the alert state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides the parameter description, and the tool description adds that alert IDs come from list_governance_alerts, giving a practical source for the parameter value beyond the schema text.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action: 'Mark a governance alert as resolved.' Specifies the resource (governance alert) and clarifies that it does not fix the root cause, distinguishing it from remediation operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides guidance by noting that alert IDs come from list_governance_alerts and that resolving does not fix the underlying issue. Also mentions the requirement for organization context, but does not explicitly name alternative tool or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Some pairs like get_header_policies vs get_resolved_headers or get_environment_verification vs get_monitoring_sync_status could be slightly confusing, but the descriptions clarify scope and purpose.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_, manage_, etc.). Even the few bare verbs like 'search' and 'set_context' are consistent with the naming scheme.
With 165 tools, the server is extremely heavy. This far exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25+, making it difficult for an agent to navigate and select the right tool efficiently.
The tool surface covers a very broad API lifecycle domain: specs, environments, test cases, monitors, mock servers, security, governance, documentation, and team management. Read and write operations are present across most areas, with no obvious missing core functionality.