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.
`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.
`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	Default
`error`	No
`errors`	No
`success`	Yes
`resolved`	No

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description details the consequences of each action: approve flips the link to active, reject dismisses the match without silent re-surfacing. It also discloses independent resolution and partial-failure behavior, which is valuable for an agent invoking a write operation.

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, front-loaded with the core operation, and uses a bulleted list for action semantics. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 annotations, input schema, and output schema, the description covers the operation's source, per-action effects, failure semantics, and batch behavior. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing to infer hidden behavior.

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 75%, and the schema already documents task_ids, workspace_id, and idempotency_key well. The description adds meaning to the action parameter by defining approve and reject outcomes, and it clarifies that each task_id resolves independently. This is useful context beyond the raw schema.

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 names a specific action (Approve or reject) on a specific resource (reconciliation review tasks) and ties the source to well_run_register_diff or the in-app review queue. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like well_run_register_diff and well_resolve_register_diff_gap.

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?

The description gives clear context for when the tool applies: tasks from well_run_register_diff or the review queue, with approve/reject semantics. It does not explicitly contrast this with the sibling well_resolve_register_diff_gap, so there is no explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the source and operation are clearly implied.

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

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: CRUD for companies, people, and invoices; financial analytics (cash, cost, runway, holdings); connector management and invocation; schema discovery; querying; reconciliation; and contact channel management. No two tools could be confused for the same action.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the `well_verb_noun` pattern with consistent verb choices (create, get, list, update, delete, add, remove, run, resolve, query, invoke). The naming is predictable and makes the tool's purpose immediately clear.

Tool Count4/5

With 26 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but every tool earns its place given the breadth of the domain (CRM, invoicing, financial analytics, reconciliation, connector management). The count is well-scoped and not excessive.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core CRUD, financial KPIs, reconciliation, and connector management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool to update contact channels or manage accounts), but the query and schema tools allow agents to work around them, and the primary workflows are fully supported.

Resources

Need Help?