Nova

Mark alert handled

resolve_alert

Idempotent

Mark a care alert as handled and add an optional note so the care circle knows what was done.

Instructions

Mark an alert as handled, with an optional note the circle will see.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "resolve_alert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No	What was done, e.g. 'Called Dr. Patel's office'
`alert_id`	No	The alert id; 0 means the most important open alert

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the note will be visible to the care circle. It does not explain permissions, status transitions, or what happens if the alert is already handled.

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 a single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted wording. It conveys the core operation and the note's visibility compactly.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the action and note visibility, and structured metadata covers safety and return behavior. The remaining gap is routing guidance among sibling tools, which is a usage-guideline issue.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented, including the special alert_id value of 0 meaning the most important open alert. The description adds audience context for note ('the circle will see'), which is beyond the schema, but it does not add more parameter detail overall.

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 states a specific verb and resource: marking an alert as handled. It adds the optional note and its audience, which makes the effect concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings such as acknowledge_notification or snooze_reminder, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_alerts, acknowledge_notification, or snooze_reminder. The only implied usage comes from the word 'handled', which is not enough in a crowded alert/notification tool set.

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