@vibemap.ai/mcp-server

vibemap_resolve_review

Resolve a review criterion by transitioning its status from in_review to passed or failed. Requires a CI-scoped token or session user.

Instructions

Resolve a criterion in review. Transitions in_review → passed | failed. NOTE: agents (env_token:agent) cannot self-resolve their own work — this tool requires a CI-scoped token (env_token:ci) or a session user.

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": {
      "criterionId": "<criterionId>",
      "outcome": "<outcome>"
    },
    "name": "vibemap_resolve_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`notes`	No
`outcome`	Yes
`testRunUrl`	No
`criterionId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.5.2Jul 26, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies required token type and agent restrictions. Annotations are all false, so no contradiction. However, it does not mention whether the transition is reversible or what happens on failure, leaving some gaps.

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?

The description is two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the critical usage note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations that are all false, the description covers the main action and auth constraints but omits parameter semantics and return value. It is adequate but incomplete for confident use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only implicitly mentions 'criterionId' and 'outcome' but does not describe 'notes' or 'testRunUrl'. This fails to add meaning beyond the schema structure.

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?

The description clearly states the tool resolves a criterion in review and transitions from 'in_review' to 'passed' or 'failed'. It provides a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('criterion in review'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'submit_for_review' or 'claim_criterion'.

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?

The description explicitly notes that agents cannot self-resolve their own work and requires a CI-scoped token or session user. This provides clear when-not-to-use guidance and prerequisites, effectively differentiating usage from other tools.

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

Deploy Server