spike_resolve_incidentsRESOLVES (closes) one or more incidents — this CHANGES live incident state and marks them done. Spike: POST /incidents/resolve with {ids:[...]}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Incident ids (the incident `_id` values) to resolve. | |
| teamId | No | The 24-char hex team _id to scope this request to (x-team-id). Omit to use the configured default (SPIKE_TEAM_ID). List ids with spike_list_teams. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states that it CHANGES live incident state and marks them done, adding behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It also provides the HTTP method and endpoint, enhancing transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the action clearly, and the second adds the API call detail. No redundant or unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and behavior. However, it does not specify return values or error handling, which would be beneficial but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses strong verbs 'RESOLVES (closes)' and clearly specifies the resource 'one or more incidents'. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it marks incidents done, which contrasts with spike_acknowledge_incidents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like spike_acknowledge_incidents. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.