Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mirsad

Mirsad

by amkkoussay
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

resolve_conflict

Close an open conflict by recording the user's ruling, preserving the decision on record for future reference.

Instructions

Close a conflict with the user's ruling, kept on record.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "conflict_id": "<conflict_id>",
      "resolution": "<resolution>"
    },
    "name": "resolve_conflict"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resolutionYes
conflict_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that the ruling is persisted ("kept on record") but does not disclose permissions, reversibility, side effects, validation, or what happens to the conflict after closing.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits when-to-use guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral details an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It loosely maps "resolution" to the user's ruling and "conflict_id" to the conflict, but gives no format, constraints, source, or validation details.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Close a conflict" with the user's ruling. It adds scope with "kept on record," but does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as open_conflicts.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the phrase "Close a conflict."

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