kener-mcp

Resolve Incident

resolve_incident

To close a Kener incident, post a RESOLVED update which sets its end time. Note: On Kener 4.1.7 and earlier, API updates do not email subscribers.

Instructions

Resolve an incident. Kener has no separate resolve call: this posts an update with state RESOLVED, which closes the incident and sets its end time. On Kener 4.1.7 and earlier, updates posted through the API do not email subscribers (rajnandan1/kener#886).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`comment`	No	Closing update text.	This incident has been resolved.
`incident_id`	Yes	Kener incident ID.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover safety (not readOnly, non-destructive) but the description adds valuable beyond-annotation detail: that it closes the incident and sets end time, and a versioned caveat about subscribers not being emailed on 4.1.7 and earlier (with issue reference). That's strong behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then mechanism, then a caveat. Zero waste.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained; annotations carry the safety profile and the description fills the remaining gaps (side effects, end time, notification caveat). Complete for a two-param tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema documents both comment and incident_id well. The description adds no parameter-level syntax beyond noting the default comment exists implicitly; baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource and disambiguates from the sibling post_incident_update by explaining that resolution is implemented as a state RESOLVED update. The mechanism is clear, though it doesn't explicitly say 'not post_incident_update' as a routing hint.

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?

Clearly implies use when closing an incident versus post_incident_update, and explains the implementation equivalence with Kener's semantics. No explicit when-not statement, but the mechanism note gives solid context.

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

Deploy Server