Skip to main content
Glama
CTRLRun

CTRLRun Approval Console

Official
by CTRLRun
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

resolve

Record the actual outcome of an unknown effect as committed or failed, with an authenticated reason. Use 'failed' to release a blocked retry after verifying the remote state.

Instructions

WRITES. States what actually happened to an effect whose outcome is unknown. Requires an authenticated human and a reason; the answer is recorded under that person's name, and a 'failed' resolution permits a retry that is currently blocked.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonYesHow you know, in plain words. Must be non-empty. A resolution answered through an assistant has a conversation behind it and no record of it, so this reason is that record.
outcomeYesWhat you established actually happened at the remote. 'committed' means the effect took hold and must never run again; 'failed' means it did not, and is what releases the blocked retry. Check the remote before answering: this is a claim about the world, not a guess.
effect_keyYesThe effect to settle, as it appears in the effects list, for example refund:txn_1. Only an effect whose outcome is unknown can be resolved.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / effect_key / description
      Added value: +"The effect to settle, as it appears in the effects list, for example refund:txn_1. Only an effect whose outcome is unknown can be resolved."
    • addedInput schema / properties / outcome / description
      Added value: +"What you established actually happened at the remote. 'committed' means the effect took hold and must never run again; 'failed' means it did not, and is what releases the blocked retry. Check the remote before answering: this is a claim about the world, not a guess."
    • addedInput schema / properties / reason / description
      Added value: +"How you know, in plain words. Must be non-empty. A resolution answered through an assistant has a conversation behind it and no record of it, so this reason is that record."
  2. First observedv0.12.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It opens with 'WRITES,' discloses the authentication requirement, states that the answer is recorded under the person's name, and explains the retry-unblocking consequence of a failed resolution.

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 compact and front-loaded, beginning with the mutation warning and then providing the essential conditions and consequences in two sentences. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The description covers prerequisites, side effects, and the core purpose well, and the schema fills in parameter details. It does not describe the expected return value or error behavior, and since there is no output schema, a fully complete description would mention what the caller gets back.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds behavioral context but no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action and resource: it 'States what actually happened to an effect whose outcome is unknown.' It is easy to distinguish from inspection or listing tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like approve or deny.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear usage context: resolve only an effect whose outcome is unknown, and do so with an authenticated human and a reason. It stops short of saying when not to use the tool or which sibling tool should be used instead.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools