Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Seonix

by io.github.pahaa97
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Un-mark an intentional issue

unacknowledge_issue

Remove the intentional mark from an issue thread so it is scored and counted again (write scope).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "issue_id": "<issue_id>"
    },
    "name": "unacknowledge_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNoWhy it is intentional (shown in the dashboard).
issue_idYesIssue id from list_issues / get_issue.
project_idNoProject id or slug.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare it non-read-only, non-destructive and non-idempotent; the description adds real context beyond that by explaining the downstream effect — the issue becomes scored and counted again — plus the '(write scope)' requirement. It doesn't mention reversibility or what happens to the stored reason, but the effect disclosure is substantive.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the effect stated inline; no filler.

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 simple 3-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope and side effect. Only the relationship to acknowledge_issue and the meaning of the optional reason argument are left implicit.

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 issue_id and project_id are already fully documented; the description adds nothing about any parameter. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Remove the intentional mark from an issue thread') and names the consequence. It is clearly the inverse of the sibling acknowledge_issue, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The usage is implied ('so it is scored and counted again'), but there is no explicit statement of when to un-mark vs. leave an issue acknowledged, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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

All Seonix toolsInspect
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