Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unilytics MCP Server

Unilytics MCP Server

Official
by TeamUnilytics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

dismiss_context_gap

DestructiveIdempotent

Dismiss a client project’s Context gap that doesn’t apply or isn’t worth answering, with an optional reason. The gap is marked dismissed and can be restored later.

Instructions

Dismiss one of a client project's Context gaps that the consultant doesn't want to answer, with an optional reason. The gap leaves the open gaps and is listed under status "dismissed"; it can be restored on the project's Context page. A draft already saved for it stays on the Context page.

Use when the user says a gap doesn't apply to this client or isn't worth answering.

`rev` and `published_revision_number` are the gap's values as list_context_gaps returned them (or gap_rev from
answer_context_gap). A gap that changed since (someone answered, dismissed or restored it, or its record was
published again) is refused, and nothing is changed.

Args:
    project_id: The project (from list_projects()).
    gap_id: The gap's gap_id from list_context_gaps.
    rev: The gap's rev from list_context_gaps.
    published_revision_number: The gap's published_revision_number from list_context_gaps (null for a `missing`
        gap).
    reason: Optional reason, up to 1,000 characters (shown with the dismissed gap).

[Provider: Unilytics]

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
revYes
gap_idYes
reasonNo
project_idYes
published_revision_numberYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is to add nuance — and it does: the gap moves to status 'dismissed' rather than being deleted, it remains restorable on the project's Context page, and any saved draft is preserved. It also discloses the optimistic-concurrency contract (a gap changed since read is refused and 'nothing is changed'), which is behavior no annotation conveys.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then the staleness contract, then args — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The only cost is mild duplication: the prose paragraph already explains what rev and published_revision_number are, and the Args block repeats the same provenance, adding length without new information.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: what state change occurs, how to recover it, what happens to drafts, what identifiers to source and from where, and how concurrent modification is handled. No meaningful gap remains.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all five parameters, and it does — giving each one provenance (project_id from list_projects(), gap_id/rev/published_revision_number from list_context_gaps) plus the edge case that published_revision_number is null for a 'missing' gap and that reason is capped at 1,000 characters. This is meaning the schema's bare types cannot supply.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Dismiss one of a client project's Context gaps') with the qualifying scope 'that the consultant doesn't want to answer'. This is clearly distinct from answer_context_gap, which the description references for the gap_rev value, so an agent can route between them without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides an explicit triggering condition: 'Use when the user says a gap doesn't apply to this client or isn't worth answering.' It implies the complement (use answer_context_gap when the consultant does want to answer) but never states an exclusion or names the alternative as the fallback for the non-dismiss case, so it stops just short of a full when/when-not pair.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools