QC Database MCP Server

mark_map_item_accepted

Record your acceptance of a completed map item, with the user's explicit approval, to mark it as accepted in the QC database.

Instructions

Mark a map item accepted (must already be complete). This is a buy-off recorded under YOUR name. Only do this with the user's explicit go-ahead - the user is accountable for the acceptance.

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": {
      "item_id": "<item_id>"
    },
    "name": "mark_map_item_accepted"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`item_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that acceptance is a buy-off recorded under the agent's name and requires user consent. Does not mention error handling or reversibility, but provides key behavioral context beyond simple action.

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?

Two sentences covering purpose, precondition, and usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 simple tool with one param and output schema, description adequately explains usage and precondition. Does not address return values or lifecycle details, but context from siblings suggests completion before acceptance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Single parameter 'item_id' is self-explanatory but description adds no extra meaning. Schema description coverage is 0%, so description fails to clarify what the ID refers to or any constraints.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'mark' and resource 'map item' with explicit precondition 'must already be complete'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling 'mark_map_item_complete' which marks complete rather than accepted.

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?

Description states when to use (item must be complete) and when not to (only with user's explicit go-ahead). Also notes accountability: 'recorded under YOUR name' and 'user is accountable for the acceptance.'

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