Drop2Run

Resolve a comment thread

resolve_comment

Idempotent

Marks a comment thread on a site resolved, as its owner. It moves from the open threads to the resolved ones of the version the site serves now. Resolve when the person asks; otherwise leave it for the commenter to confirm the fix. reopen_comment undoes it.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	Yes	Subdomain or site id, from list_sites.
`thread`	Yes	Identifier of the thread, from list_comments.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Identifier of the thread, which reply_comment and resolve_comment take.
`url`	Yes	Opens the page at the thread.
`path`	Yes	The page it is on, or the document's path in a documents site.
`quote`	Yes	The words the commenter selected, or the text near a pin; use it to find the source.
`comments`	Yes
`outdated`	Yes	True when it was opened on an earlier version; the words it points at may have changed.
`resolved`	Yes	Whether it is resolved.
`selector`	Yes	The CSS selector of the element it is on.
`resolvedAt`	Yes	When it was resolved, ISO 8601, or null while open.
`resolvedBy`	Yes	Who resolved it, by name, or null while open.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 18, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / resolvedAt

Added value: +{
+  "description": "When it was resolved, ISO 8601, or null while open.",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / resolvedBy

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Who resolved it, by name, or null while open.",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "path",
-  "url",
-  "quote",
-  "selector",
-  "outdated",
-  "resolved",
-  "comments"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "path",
+  "url",
+  "quote",
+  "selector",
+  "outdated",
+  "resolved",
+  "resolvedBy",
+  "resolvedAt",
+  "comments"
+]

First observedOct 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and destructive flags, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context: the owner-only authorization ('as its owner') and the state transition to the resolved set of the currently served version. It stops short of describing failure modes or propagation timing.

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?

Three compact sentences that lead with the action and follow with the behavioral and usage constraints; each sentence earns its place. The phrasing is slightly idiosyncratic ('the version the site serves now') but not padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the two required parameters are fully covered by the schema. The description supplies the ownership and usage context an agent needs; only failure/permission behavior is 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 both parameters are already documented with their sources (list_sites, list_comments). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('marks... resolved'), the resource ('a comment thread on a site'), and the actor scope ('as its owner'). It is clearly distinguishable from reopen_comment and reply_comment in the sibling list.

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 explicit when-to-act guidance ('Resolve when the person asks') and an explicit when-not condition ('otherwise leave it for the commenter to confirm the fix'). It also names the undoing sibling tool, so the agent can route between them without inference.

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

All Drop2Run tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.