Set an issue's status to resolved, ignored, or unresolved (reopen) to triage production SDK errors.
Triage an issue: resolve it, ignore it, or reopen it (status unresolved).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| issue_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | No | Project id. Optional, falls back to the CLI's selected project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It is a mutation tool, yet the description never states permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, or how 'ignored' differs operationally from 'resolved' beyond the enum labels. The behavioral disclosure is essentially absent.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a mutation tool.
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?
For a simple 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys the action and outcomes but omits behavioral context and usage guidance. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 33%: project_id is documented but issue_id is not. The description partially compensates by interpreting the status enum in human terms (resolve, ignore, reopen), adding marginal value, but it leaves issue_id semantics to the plain type.
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 states a specific verb (triage/set status) and resource (issue), and enumerates the three outcomes (resolve, ignore, reopen as `unresolved`). This distinguishes it from read-only siblings like octri_list_issues and octri_get_issue, though it does not name a sibling by name.
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 phrase 'Triage an issue' implies the context of use, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives. Usage is left to inference from the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.