Resolve an incident by providing its system ID, resolution code, and notes. Marks the incident as resolved with the given details.
Resolve an incident with resolution code and notes (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sys_id | Yes | System ID of the incident | |
| resolution_code | Yes | Resolution code (e.g., "Solved (Permanently)") | |
| resolution_notes | Yes | Details of how the incident was resolved |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is covered. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED requirement, which is useful context, but it does not disclose what happens to the incident state (e.g., status becomes resolved) or any side effects. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and captures the key parameters and a critical requirement, with no wasted words.
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 three-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and any explicit statement about the effect of resolution on the incident, which would be helpful for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'resolution code and notes' only restates the parameter names without adding format, syntax, or additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clearly states the action ('Resolve') and the resource ('an incident'), and mentions key parameters. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like close_incident or update_incident, so it falls short of a perfect 5.
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 only usage-related information is the parenthetical 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true', which is a prerequisite rather than guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of when to choose resolve_incident over close_incident or update_incident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.