contradiction-mcp

contradiction.conflicts.resolve

Idempotent

Resolve contradiction records by updating their lifecycle status with reviewer decisions, chosen authoritative claims, and audit trail.

Instructions

Updates the lifecycle status and audit trail of a contradiction record. Supports marking as REVIEWED, resolving as RESOLVED with an authoritative chosen claim, dismissing as DISMISSED (acceptable divergence), or reopening back to OPEN. Preserves an immutable audit trail of reviewer identity, decision reason, and timestamp. Mutating operation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`actor`	No	Name, email, or agent identifier performing the lifecycle action (defaults to resolvedBy if provided)
`notes`	No	Additional triage notes or reviewer findings
`action`	No	Lifecycle action to perform: RESOLVE (accepts authoritative claim), REVIEW (marks reviewed), DISMISS (marks acceptable divergence), REOPEN (reopens back to OPEN) (default: RESOLVE)	RESOLVE
`reason`	No	Detailed explanation justifying the decision (required for RESOLVE and DISMISS)
`resolvedBy`	No	Legacy parameter: Name or identifier of the resolver when action is RESOLVE
`chosenClaimId`	No	ID of the claim accepted as authoritative (optional for RESOLVE action)
`contradictionId`	Yes	The unique ID of the contradiction record to update

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	ID of the updated contradiction
`status`	No	Updated contradiction lifecycle status
`chosenClaimId`	No	Authoritative claim ID chosen

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.3.3Sep 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already convey mutating/non-read-only behaviorholley and idempotency. The description adds valuable context by stating that the audit trail is immutable and preserved, and by explaining the semantics of each status transition. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause adds at least one meaningful distinction, though the closing 'Mutating operation' is somewhat redundant with the annotations and the opening verb.

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?

For a 7-parameter lifecycle tool, the description covers all action types and important behavioral commitments such as the immutable audit trail. Schema and output schema cover the remaining parameter and return details, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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 adds meaning by linking actions to the authoritative chosen claim, acceptable divergence, reviewer identity, decision reason, and timestamp, which helps an agent understand which parameters are relevant for each action.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Updates the lifecycle status and audit trail of a contradiction record.' It then enumerates the full set of supported transitions, distinguishing this mutating lifecycle tool from read-only siblings like contradiction.conflicts.list and contradiction.conflicts.get.

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 clearly scopes the tool to lifecycle/state changes, which is sufficient context for choosing it over read/scan/advise siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the action set makes the intended usage obvious.

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

Deploy Server