Acknowledge a signal to mark it as seen, moving its status from open to acknowledged, ensuring visibility before full resolution with the resolve tool.
Acknowledge a signal — moves status from "open" to "acknowledged" (someone has seen it). Use invariance_signal_resolve to mark fully resolved.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, implying a non-destructive state change. The description adds valuable context by specifying the exact state transition (open to acknowledged) and the fact that it does NOT fully resolve (leaving it for resolve tool). This goes beyond the schema and annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste. The immediate action is front-loaded, and the alternative is provided separately. Perfectly concise for the required information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It could mention what happens to the signal after acknowledgment (e.g., remains in 'acknowledged' state) but the existence of invariance_signal_resolve implies that. Adequate for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter 'id'. It says 'Acknowledge a signal' but does not explicitly state that 'id' is the signal identifier)Skip: The description doesn't add specific semantic details beyond the parameter name; it relies on the tool name to infer 'id' refers to a signal. Coverage is 0%, but with one obvious parameter, baseline 3 is fair.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Acknowledge a signal') and the specific resource ('signal'), with a precise state transition from 'open' to 'acknowledged'. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling invariance_signal_resolve, making the tool's distinct purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states when to use it ('Acknowledge a signal') and implicitly when not to use it by directing to invariance_signal_resolve for full resolution. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' exclusions (e.g., for already-acknowledged signals), but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.