squadcast_resolve_incidentResolve an incident on the LIVE account, recording a resolution message. Squadcast: POST /v3/incidents/{incidentID}/resolve.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | Resolution reason/message (required). | |
| incidentId | Yes | The incident id to resolve (required). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true. Description adds context about LIVE account and recording a message, reinforcing the destructive nature. No contradiction.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Every part earns its place.
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?
Covers purpose and input adequately for a simple action with no output schema. Could mention finality vs acknowledge but not required given title differentiation.
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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'recording a resolution message', not enough to exceed baseline.
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?
Clearly states verb 'resolve', resource 'incident', and context 'LIVE account' with 'recording a resolution message'. Distinguishes from siblings like 'acknowledge' and 'add note'.
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?
Implied usage (when you want to resolve an incident), but no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with alternatives like acknowledge. Lacks prerequisites or context.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource-action pair, such as incident actions, services, teams, users, schedules, etc. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'squadcast_verb_noun' in snake_case. Verbs are always first (e.g., acknowledge, add, get, list, resolve), making naming predictable.
With 16 tools, the server covers key incident management operations and supporting resources without being overly numerous or sparse. The scope is well-calibrated.
The toolset covers essential incident lifecycle actions (acknowledge, resolve, add notes, list/get incidents) and supporting resources. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of create/update for non-incident entities, but these are not critical for the primary incident response workflow.