opentakeoff-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

resolve_rfi

Answer an open RFI by recording the actual response, setting status to answered with timestamps, and rejecting non-open RFIs.

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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

TableJSON 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`status`	Yes	The panel's lifecycle: open → answered → closed; void = withdrawn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.

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, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the resulting status (answered), the date-stamping behavior, the added ISO timestamp, and the refusal semantics for non-open records. This is exactly the state-machine and side-effect information an agent needs for a mutation with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and state constraint, then progressively adds refusal rules and the undo escape hatch. The parentheticals are dense but each carries real information; nothing is pure filler, though it is on the longer side for two fields.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description still covers preconditions, refusal behavior, timestamp effects, and reversal. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (baseline 3). The description adds semantic guidance beyond the schema for the answer param — "Record the answer the drawings or the architect actually gave; an RFI is not resolved by guessing" — clarifying what a valid answer is.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: "Answer an OPEN RFI." It immediately distinguishes itself from the create_rfi/list_rfis/delete_rfi siblings by naming the exact state transition (open -> answered) it performs.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition ("Only an open RFI resolves") and the exclusion ("an answered, closed, or void one is refused rather than re-answered"). It also names the alternative for reversing a mistake ("undo_last reverses your own resolve"), giving the agent a clear routing decision.

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