Markdown by mdedit.ai

Resolve a review thread

resolve_thread

Idempotent

Resolve an existing review thread using the exact threadId and targetId returned by add_comment, not commandId.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`targetId`	No	The exact targetId returned by add_comment. Pass it with add_comment.threadId, especially for targets other than content.md.
`threadId`	Yes	The exact threadId returned by add_comment. Pass it with add_comment.targetId; do not pass add_comment.commandId.
`articleId`	No	Internal document identifier when already available. Omit it when the user referred to the document by title.
`commandId`	Yes	Globally unique UUID for this logical review mutation. Generate it once and reuse the exact value if the tool call is retried.
`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.
`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.

Changed5 schema fields changedSep 15, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / commandId / description

Added value: +"Globally unique UUID for this logical review mutation. Generate it once and reuse the exact value if the tool call is retried."

addedInput schema / properties / commandId / format
```
Added value: +"uuid"
```
removedInput schema / properties / commandId / minLength
```
Removed value: -1
```

addedInput schema / properties / commandId / pattern

Added value: +"^([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)$"

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "threadId"
-]New value: +[
+  "threadId",
+  "commandId"
+]

First observedAug 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readonly, idempotent mutation, so the bar is lower. The description adds the behavioral note that the thread must already exist and that the IDs must come from add_comment, and warns against commandId. However, it does not disclose what 'resolving' does to the thread state or that commandId is still required for idempotency, which is a notable gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase carries meaning: the action, the required ID provenance, and the exclusion of commandId as an identifier.

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?

Despite the rich schema, the description's 'not commandId' phrasing is ambiguous because commandId is a required parameter in the schema. The description fails to clarify that commandId must still be supplied for idempotency and that 'not commandId' means 'do not use it as the thread identifier'. This creates a potential conflict for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's warning about using threadId/targetId and not commandId largely repeats what the schema already says in the parameter descriptions. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the structured field 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 clearly states the action ('Resolve an existing review thread') with a specific verb and resource. It also adds the key detail that the thread must be identified by the exact threadId and targetId returned by add_comment. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but 'resolve' is distinct from 'reply_to_thread' and 'list_review_threads'.

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 operational guidance: use the exact threadId and targetId from add_comment, and do not use commandId as the identifier. This is a useful exclusion that prevents a common mistake. It does not discuss when to prefer resolve_thread over alternatives, but the action is specific enough that the intended context is evident.

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

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?