opentakeoff-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

resolve_rfi

Answer an open RFI by recording the response the drawings or architect actually gave, marking it answered with a timestamped date. Refuses RFIs already answered, closed, or void.

Instructions

Answer an OPEN RFI: the answer lands as its response, status becomes answered (the register's own state for "response in"), and the response date stamps exactly as the panel's would, plus an ISO timestamp of the resolve. Only an open RFI resolves — an answered, closed, or void one is refused rather than re-answered or quietly revived (undo_last reverses your own resolve if the answer was wrong). Record the answer the drawings or the architect actually gave; an RFI is not resolved by guessing.

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": {
      "rfi_id": "<rfi_id>",
      "answer": "<answer>"
    },
    "name": "resolve_rfi"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`answer`	Yes	The response — what settles the question
`rfi_id`	Yes	Record id from create_rfi or list_rfis

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The record id ("rfi-…")
`date`	Yes	YYYY-MM-DD opened
`note`	Yes
`actor`	Yes	Who raised it — "agent" for every RFI minted over MCP, "estimator" for a panel-raised one
`sheet`	Yes	The sheet the question is about
`number`	Yes	The register number, "RFI-001" — next in the panel's own sequence, never reissued
`status`	Yes	The panel's lifecycle: open → answered → closed; void = withdrawn
`pending`	Yes	true = agent-raised and not yet accepted by an estimator in the register (origin.reviewed false) — pencil, not sent
`subject`	Yes
`question`	Yes
`response`	Yes
`conditions`	Yes	Finish tags the linked markups are attached to — the scopes this question touches
`resolved_at`	Yes	ISO-8601 time of this resolve
`response_date`	Yes	YYYY-MM-DD answered, '' while open
`linked_markups`	Yes	Annotation ids carrying this RFI's number on the sheet (markup.rfi_id) — derived, never stored twice

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.31Nov 7, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
Addedv0.1.21Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so: it specifies the response field being populated, the resulting status ("answered"), the response date stamp plus an ISO resolve timestamp, and the refusal behavior for non-open records. It also states the durability/side-effect profile by pointing to undo_last as the reversal mechanism, which is the kind of mutation context an agent needs before writing.

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?

It is front-loaded with the outcome (answer lands as response, status becomes answered) before the constraints and the cautionary closing line. The prose is dense and multi-clause, with a slightly overstuffed opening sentence, but nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter mutation with an output schema already present, the description covers everything an agent needs: the allowed starting state, resulting state and timestamps, failure behavior, and the reversal path. Return-value detail is correctly left to the output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning on top: the answer must be "what settles the question" and must reflect what the drawings or architect actually gave rather than a guess, and the state constraint implies rfi_id must reference an open record.

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 opening clause pairs a specific verb ("Answer") with a specific resource and precondition ("an OPEN RFI"), which immediately separates it from create_rfi, list_rfis, and delete_rfi in the sibling list. It also states the concrete effect on the record, so an agent knows exactly what operation it is selecting.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives an explicit when-to-use (only an open RFI resolves) and when-not (answered, closed, or void RFIs are refused rather than re-answered or revived). It names the recovery path by sibling name — "undo_last reverses your own resolve if the answer was wrong" — so the agent knows the alternative tool and the condition that selects it.

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

Deploy Server