redreplier

Update Mention Status

update_mention_status

Update a mention's triage status to APPROVED (real lead), REJECTED (noise, hidden from default lists), or NEW (back to inbox). Reversible, updates review timestamp, returns the updated mention.

Instructions

Set one mention's triage status. APPROVED marks it a real lead; REJECTED marks it noise and drops it from default list_mentions and count_mentions results (pass statuses to see it again); NEW returns it to the inbox. Fully reversible: any status can move to any other; reviewedAt is stamped when leaving NEW and cleared on NEW. Judge on the content and relevanceScore, calling explain_mention first when the score looks off; never approve a mention you have not read. mentionId comes from list_mentions. Returns the updated mention.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes	New status: APPROVED (real lead), REJECTED (noise, hidden from default lists), or NEW (back to inbox)
`mentionId`	Yes	Mention ID (UUID)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	No	The updated mention with its new status and reviewedAt (null when NEW).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.1Sep 7, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / status / description

Previous value: -"New status: NEW, APPROVED, or REJECTED"New value: +"New status: APPROVED (real lead), REJECTED (noise, hidden from default lists), or NEW (back to inbox)"

changedOutput schema / properties / result / description

Previous value: -"The mention with its updated status."New value: +"The updated mention with its new status and reviewedAt (null when NEW)."

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It fully discloses reversibility, side effects of REJECTED on default lists, and the reviewedAt timestamp lifecycle. No contradiction with annotations.

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, both dense with information, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every clause earns its place—no filler or repetition of schema fields. The long second sentence is acceptable given the amount of behavioral context it packs.

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 mutation tool with side effects and multiple status transitions, the description covers all essential operational details: reversibility, timestamp behavior, effect on lists, source of the ID, and the recommendation to verify with explain_mention. Output schema exists, so return format is already covered.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% but the description adds significant value beyond the enum definitions: it explains the downstream consequences of each status (REJECTED hides from default lists, NEW returns to inbox) and the source of mentionId. This transforms dry schema into actionable context.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Set one mention's triage status') and immediately distinguishes the three statuses. It clearly differentiates from siblings like list_mentions and explain_mention by focusing on the single-mention state change.

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 when to call explain_mention (when score looks off), when to avoid approving (without reading), and describes how REJECTED affects default list_mentions/count_mentions results. Also tells the agent where mentionId comes from (list_mentions), leaving no ambiguity about prerequisites.

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