Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

HelpCenter.io

by io.helpcenter
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Resolve HelpCenter Article Note

helpcenter_resolve_article_note
DestructiveIdempotent

Mark an editorial note thread as dealt with. The highlight disappears from the article in the editor and the note stops asking for attention.

A resolved thread stays readable via helpcenter_list_article_notes with include_resolved: true, and resolving twice is not an error. Resolving changes the thread state and removes it from the active review queue.

Resolve a note when you have ACTUALLY addressed it — made the change, or replied explaining why not. Resolving one you have only read hides a human's feedback from them.

Args:

  • article_id (number, required), note_id (number, required).

Returns: { status: "success", message, id }.

Errors: 403 'insufficient_scope' without the notes.write scope; 403 'notes_forbidden' if dashboard access to team comments has been lost; 404 if the note is not on this article.

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": {
      "article_id": "<article_id>",
      "note_id": "<note_id>"
    },
    "name": "helpcenter_resolve_article_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
note_idYesId of the note thread to mark done.
site_idNoWhich help center to act on: an id from helpcenter_list_sites. Needed when this connection reaches more than one help center; omit it when it reaches one. Applies to this call only — pass it on every call of a task, and ask the user which help center they mean if their request does not say.
article_idYesId of the article the note is on.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that resolving is non-erroring when repeated (corroborating and explaining idempotentHint), that the thread remains readable after resolution, and what the state change actually removes from the active review queue. It also documents auth requirements (notes.write scope, dashboard access loss) and the 404 condition, none of which the annotations convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its effect, then usage rule, then return and error contract — a sensible ordering. The explicit 'Args:' line duplicates what a 100%-covered schema already says and could be dropped without loss.

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?

For a state-mutating tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({ status, message, id }), the three realistic failure modes with status codes, and the semantics of repeated invocation. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 both required parameters are already fully documented, and the description's 'Args' line only restates them. It also omits any mention of site_id, which the schema itself explains in detail. No meaning is added beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'mark an editorial note thread as dealt with' — and immediately describes the observable effect ('the highlight disappears from the article in the editor'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling operations like helpcenter_list_article_notes, helpcenter_create_article_note, and helpcenter_reply_to_article_note.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit when: 'Resolve a note when you have ACTUALLY addressed it — made the change, or replied explaining why not.' It also gives an explicit when-not with the consequence of getting it wrong: 'Resolving one you have only read hides a human's feedback from them.' It additionally names the read path for resolved threads (helpcenter_list_article_notes with include_resolved: true).

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

All HelpCenter.io 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