SkoIA Parts

Resolve a physical-part problem

resolve_problem

Read-onlyIdempotent

Runs the deterministic problem-first resolver and returns the best supported next action or the minimum missing information.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`intent`	No
`productA`	No
`productB`	No
`description`	Yes
`relationship`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`tool`	Yes
`facts`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`requestId`	Yes
`confidence`	Yes
`provenance`	Yes
`schemaVersion`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 2, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / confidence / properties / score / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "maximum": 1,
+    "minimum": 0,
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / confidence / properties / score / maximum
```
Removed value: -1
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / confidence / properties / score / minimum
```
Removed value: -0
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / confidence / properties / score / type
```
Removed value: -"number"
```
First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful behavioral context: resolution is deterministic and the tool either produces the best supported next action or the minimum missing information. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler and front-loads the verb and outcome. It loses a point because the phrase 'problem-first resolver' is used without explanation, making the sentence harder to parse than necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema and annotations cover some context, but the description is incomplete for a tool with five mostly undocumented parameters and many closely related siblings. An agent is not given enough information about what inputs matter, how to phrase the required description, or when this tool should be chosen over alternatives.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no meaning for any of the five parameters. It does not even mention that 'description' is required or clarify roles of intent, productA, productB, or relationship. The description entirely fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific operation ('runs the deterministic problem-first resolver') and a concrete outcome ('returns the best supported next action or the minimum missing information'), so an agent can tell it is a decision/resolution tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like synthesize_physical_solution or get_next_observation, which lowers it from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The description implies it is for resolving a physical-part problem and getting the next action, but it never states prerequisites, exclusions, or how this resolver relates to other tools.

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

All SkoIA Parts 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?