Markdown by mdedit.ai

Reject a review suggestion

reject_suggestion

Mark an existing review suggestion rejected without changing the document. Use the exact suggestionId and targetId returned by add_suggestion or list_review_threads.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`targetId`	No
`articleId`	No	Internal document identifier when already available. Omit it when the user referred to the document by title.
`commandId`	No
`workspaceId`	No	Internal workspace identifier when already available. Omit it when the user referred to a workspace by name or has only one workspace.
`articleTitle`	No	Human-visible document title. Prefer this over asking the user for an internal document identifier.
`suggestionId`	Yes
`workspaceName`	No	Human-visible workspace name. Prefer this over asking the user for an internal workspace identifier.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`events`	Yes
`applied`	Yes
`articleId`	Yes
`commandId`	Yes
`workspaceId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedAug 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds a meaningful side-effect guarantee: it marks the suggestion rejected 'without changing the document.' With all annotation hints false, however, it leaves unstated whether the action is reversible, whether the suggestion must still be pending, and what happens to a rejected suggestion in reviewing workflows.

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?

Two focused sentences with no filler; the key side-effect scope is front-loaded before the identifier instructions.

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 tool whose only required parameter is suggestionId, the description covers the essential call data and side-effect scope, and an output schema exists to describe the response. The main omission is commandId's role, but it is optional and likely not needed for correct invocation.

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?

It adds provenance semantics for suggestionId and targetId, which the schema does not describe. Article and workspace identifier parameters are already explained in the schema, but commandId remains unexplained, preventing a 5.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Mark an existing review suggestion rejected without changing the document.' This clearly distinguishes reject_suggestion from add_suggestion (which creates) and accept_suggestion (which accepts instead of rejecting).

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 tells the agent to use 'the exact suggestionId and targetId returned by add_suggestion or list_review_threads,' giving concrete prerequisites and identifier sources. It does not explicitly name when not to use or contrast reject vs accept, but the instruction is unambiguous.

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

All Markdown by mdedit.ai 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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes across article CRUD, review workflows, publishing, and conversion/export. Minor confusion can arise between convert_document and start_article_export (and their corresponding status checkers), but the descriptions explicitly differentiate arbitrary content conversion from exporting stored documents. The render_article tool's broad contextual wording overlaps conceptually with several actions, though its actual function (opening the reader) is unique.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 22 tool names follow a strict snake_case verb_noun pattern, such as list_articles, accept_suggestion, start_article_export, and unpublish_article. There are no mixed conventions, vague verbs, or camelCase outliers, making the naming highly predictable.

Tool Count3/5

At 22 tools, the server sits above the ideal 3-15 range and feels somewhat heavy for an MCP surface. The inclusion of record_article_app_event, a component-only telemetry tool with no agent-facing value, adds to this heaviness. However, the breadth of the domain—documents, collaboration, publishing, and conversion—largely justifies the count.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers article lifecycle, review threads, publishing, export/conversion, and presence well, covering most common workflows. A notable gap is the lack of any delete_article or trash operation, leaving no way to remove documents. Additionally, updates are limited to anchored edits via edit_article, with no direct full-content replacement option.

Resources

Need Help?