Swipium

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Explain a blocker

qa_explain_blocker

Read-only

Explains a Swipium failure code in plain language, covering its meaning, who owns the fix, retry safety, and the recovery step.

Instructions

Explain a failureCode in plain language: what it means, who owns the fix (app / environment / Swipium / user), whether it is retry-safe or Swipium can fix it, and the recovery step.

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": {
      "failureCode": "<failureCode>"
    },
    "name": "qa_explain_blocker"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`context`	No
`sessionId`	No	The blocked session (qa_status then moves past the blocker).
`failureCode`	Yes	failureCode from a Swipium error.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful semantics about what the answer classifies (ownership category, retry-safety), but says nothing about output format, cost, or latency beyond that.

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?

A single well-structured sentence with a colon-delimited list of exactly the four things returned. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero filler.

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 read-only explainer with no output schema, enumerating the answer's contents largely substitutes for a return spec. The one gap is the undocumented 'context' parameter, which neither schema nor description explains.

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 67%, with failureCode and sessionId already documented in the schema; only 'context' lacks a description. The description adds no format or usage detail for any parameter, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting — a baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('failureCode') and even enumerates the four things the explanation covers (meaning, owner, retry-safety, recovery step). It never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like qa_continue_from_blocker, but the read-only 'explain' intent is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Use is implied: you have a failureCode and want to understand it before acting. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no mention of a natural pairing (e.g. call this before qa_continue_from_blocker), and no when-not guidance.

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