Well

Resolve reconciliation task

well_resolve_reconciliation_task

Approve or reject one or more reconciliation review tasks (from well_run_register_diff or the in-app review queue).

approve: confirms the match — the link is flipped to active.
reject: dismisses the match — the candidate does not silently re-surface.

Each task_id resolves independently; a failure on one (already resolved, not found) is returned in errors and does not block the rest of the batch.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	Yes
`task_ids`	Yes	The review tasks' task_id values.
`selection`	No	For an unresolved reconciliation review task: the transaction the reviewer picked to settle the invoice. Applies to exactly one task; required on approve, rejected elsewhere.
`workspace_id`	No	Target workspace. Omit when the token authorizes one workspace. Required when it authorizes several — a write lands in exactly one workspace and this call would not say which.
`conversation_id`	No	The conversation id returned by the previous Well result, in its meta under well/conversation_id, in its structuredContent, or in its JSON text block. Pass it back on every call in the same conversation, including a call a card makes, so the chosen workspace and the earlier answers still apply. It decides the conversation on its own: nothing the host states about the session replaces it. Omit it only on the first call of a conversation.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional client-supplied key. A retried write with the same key returns the original result instead of re-applying the operation.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No
`errors`	No
`success`	Yes
`resolved`	No
`conversation_id`	No	The conversation this result belongs to. Pass it back as the conversation_id argument on every later Well call in the same conversation.
`conversation_id_note`	No	Present only when the server opened a fresh lane, stating that no choice recorded earlier was read.
`conversation_id_source`	No	Where the conversation id came from: the host's own request meta, the caller's argument, or a fresh lane the server opened.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / conversation_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The conversation id returned by the previous Well result, in its meta under well/conversation_id, in its structuredContent, or in its JSON text block. Pass it back on every call in the same conversation, including a call a card makes, so the chosen workspace and the earlier answers still apply. It decides the conversation on its own: nothing the host states about the session replaces it. Omit it only on the first call of a conversation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / conversation_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The conversation this result belongs to. Pass it back as the conversation_id argument on every later Well call in the same conversation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / conversation_id_note

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present only when the server opened a fresh lane, stating that no choice recorded earlier was read.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / conversation_id_source

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Where the conversation id came from: the host's own request meta, the caller's argument, or a fresh lane the server opened.",
+  "enum": [
+    "host_meta",
+    "argument",
+    "minted"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 15, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / selection

Added value: +{
+  "description": "For an unresolved reconciliation review task: the transaction the reviewer picked to settle the invoice. Applies to exactly one task; required on approve, rejected elsewhere.",
+  "properties": {
+    "allocated_amount": {
+      "description": "The invoice-currency amount this settlement covers.",
+      "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "target_id": {
+      "format": "uuid",
+      "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "target_type": {
+      "const": "transaction",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "target_type",
+    "target_id",
+    "allocated_amount"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedAug 31, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / workspace_id / description

Previous value: -"Target workspace. Omit to use the only authorized workspace, or (for read tools) to query all authorized workspaces grouped by workspace. Required for write tools when the token authorizes more than one workspace."New value: +"Target workspace. Omit when the token authorizes one workspace. Required when it authorizes several — a write lands in exactly one workspace and this call would not say which."

AddedJul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses the effect of each action ('approve: confirms the match — the link is flipped to active', 'reject: dismisses the match — the candidate does not silently re-surface'), which is beyond the bare annotations. It further explains independent resolution and per-task error handling, giving the agent a clear model of partial failures without needing to experiment.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: a lead sentence, two bullets for the action effects, and one sentence for batch semantics. No filler; every line contributes to the agent's understanding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, nested object, output schema), the description covers purpose, action semantics, and batch behavior, while the schema handles parameter details and the output schema tells the agent what to expect back. The combination gives the agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The description adds meaning to action (approve/reject semantics) and to task_ids (independent resolution, per-item errors) beyond what the schema states. With schema coverage at 83%, the remaining parameters like selection, workspace_id, and conversation_id are already well-documented, so the description need not repeat them.

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 description opens with a specific verb phrase — 'Approve or reject one or more reconciliation review tasks' — and anchors the resource to its sources (well_run_register_diff or the in-app review queue). This distinguishes it from related siblings like well_resolve_register_diff_gap by scoping it to review-task resolution rather than gap resolution.

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 input context — tasks come from well_run_register_diff or the in-app review queue — so an agent knows when this tool applies. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or give 'when not to use' guidance, leaving some inference to the agent.

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

All Well 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?