Ignore an active project risk with a required reason and optional ignore-until date. Requires project:manage permission; the project is determined by the API key.
忽略风险。需 project:manage 权限。仅可忽略 active 状态的风险。 POST /api/projects/{id}/risks/{riskId}/ignore 项目由当前 API 密钥自动确定，无需传 projectId。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the project:manage permission requirement and the state precondition (only active risks). What the operation returns or what happens to the risk record afterwards is not stated, keeping it from a 5.
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?
Front-loaded with the action and permission, then the precondition, then the endpoint. Four tight clauses with no redundancy. The raw endpoint string is slightly less user-friendly than prose but earns its place as routing context.
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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers permission, state precondition, and the projectId ambiguity, which are the key things an agent needs before calling. It omits any note on the effect on the risk's status after ignoring, a minor gap.
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 0% for the top-level path/body params. The description helpfully clarifies that projectId is auto-resolved from the API key, which maps to the path parameter, but it adds nothing about body.reason or body.ignoredUntil semantics beyond what the nested schema already documents. Partial compensation warrants a 3.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('忽略风险' = ignore risk), making it immediately distinguishable from its sibling 'anon_post_risks_risk_id_restore'. It also pins the target scope (active risks only). It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, so 5 is not warranted.
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?
It states the required permission (project:manage) and the precondition that only 'active' risks can be ignored, giving clear when-to-use conditions. It does not name alternatives (e.g. restore) or exclusions explicitly, so it falls just under a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.