Claude Project History MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Resolve Blocker

cph_blocker_resolve

Idempotent

Mark a blocker as resolved with a specific resolution note to improve future blocker prediction; optionally reset the linked task to in-progress.

Instructions

Mark a blocker as resolved.

Always provide a resolution note — this is training data for predicting future blockers and is the most valuable signal in the system after actual_minutes on tasks.

Auto-behavior: if blocker has a task_id and unblock_task=true, task is set back to in_progress.

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": {
      "blocker_id": "<blocker_id>",
      "resolution": "<resolution>"
    },
    "name": "cph_blocker_resolve"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`blocker_id`	Yes
`resolution`	Yes	How was this resolved? Be specific — this trains blocker prediction.
`unblock_task`	No	Reset associated task to in_progress on resolve

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.0Jun 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant context beyond annotations. It explains the auto-behavior (task reset to in_progress) and the importance of the resolution note as training data. Annotations mark it as idempotent, which is consistent.

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 concise with two sentences and a separate line for auto-behavior. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds critical context without wasted words.

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 3-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers the action, parameter importance, and side effects. It could mention error cases (e.g., nonexistent blocker) but is sufficient for typical use.

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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions. The description reinforces the resolution parameter's importance and connectivity to training, adding value over the schema alone. For blocker_id, no extra info is provided.

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 description starts with 'Mark a blocker as resolved,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by not creating, escalating, or listing blockers.

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?

The description implies when to use (when a blocker is resolved) and emphasizes providing a resolution note, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like cph_blocker_create or cph_blocker_escalate.

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