Casefile

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Resolve remark

resolve

Record a task remark's outcome and destination, moving it from open remarks and, if accepted, tracking it in work until the follow-up task closes.

Instructions

Resolves a remark on a task: its outcome and where the work went.

Any outcome resolves the remark, needs_detail included: the resolution removes it from open_remarks, while accepted keeps it in remarks_in_work until the continuation task is closed. Its title is made of the remark reference and the outcome.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`key`	Yes	Task key `PROJECT-N`, case-insensitive; a previous key of a moved task addresses it as well. An unknown key is refused with `task_not_found`
`body`	No	Entry body in markdown, stored and returned as is. It holds what a successor needs to continue; file contents and long outputs stay outside it, represented by a pointer and the gist
`task`	No	Key of the task the work went to. Required with `accepted` and refused with any other outcome, both as `entry_fields_invalid`
`outcome`	Yes	How the remark is resolved, and what the body holds: - `fixed` — corrected at once; the body states what changed; - `accepted` — taken into work as a separate task named in `task`; - `needs_detail` — the remark needs clarification; the body holds the concrete question; - `declined` — nothing will change; the body gives the reason
`remark_no`	Yes	Number of the `remark` entry in the same task; any other number is refused with `entry_fields_invalid`
`idempotency_key`	No	Retry key chosen by the caller, e.g. a UUID. A repeat with the same key and the same arguments returns the first result and creates nothing; the same key with other arguments is refused with `idempotency_key_reused`. A key is bound to the caller's token and kept for 24 hours

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`no`	Yes	Entry number in the task's case; with the key it forms `TRK-42#12`
`seq`	Yes	Journal sequence number, usable as `after` of `wait_journal`
`title`	Yes	The title the tracker built, for entry types whose title is not sent (summary, answer, verdict, resolution, service entries); `null` when the caller sent the title
`author`	Yes
`task_key`	Yes
`created_at`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed22 schema fields changedv0.5.2Sep 25, 2026

removedInput schema / $defs

Removed value: -{
-  "RemarkOutcome": {
-    "description": "Чем разобрано замечание (`CONCEPT.md`, 3.4).\n\nСписок закрыт и покрывает все четыре судьбы претензии: поправили сразу, приняли в\nработу отдельной задачей, не поняли и ждём уточнения, менять не будем. Свободного\n«прочее» здесь нет намеренно — оно снова сделало бы исход текстом.",
-    "enum": [
-      "fixed",
-      "accepted",
-      "needs_detail",
-      "declined"
-    ],
-    "title": "RemarkOutcome",
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-}

changedInput schema / properties / body / description

Previous value: -"Тело записи в markdown; хранится и отдаётся как есть"New value: +"Entry body in markdown, stored and returned as is. It holds what a successor needs to continue; file contents and long outputs stay outside it, represented by a pointer and the gist"

changedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / description

Previous value: -"Ключ повтора, который ты придумываешь сам (обычно UUID). Повтор вызова с тем же ключом и теми же аргументами отвечает первым результатом и второго объекта не заводит; тот же ключ с другими аргументами отклоняется. Ключ живёт в паре с твоим токеном и помнится 24 часа"New value: +"Retry key chosen by the caller, e.g. a UUID. A repeat with the same key and the same arguments returns the first result and creates nothing; the same key with other arguments is refused with `idempotency_key_reused`. A key is bound to the caller's token and kept for 24 hours"

changedInput schema / properties / key / description

Previous value: -"Ключ задачи, например `TRK-42`. Регистр не важен"New value: +"Task key `PROJECT-N`, case-insensitive; a previous key of a moved task addresses it as well. An unknown key is refused with `task_not_found`"

removedInput schema / properties / outcome / $ref
```
Removed value: -"#/$defs/RemarkOutcome"
```

changedInput schema / properties / outcome / description

Previous value: -"Чем разобрано замечание: `fixed` — поправлено сразу, `accepted` — принято в работу отдельной задачей (тогда обязателен `task`), `needs_detail` — нужно уточнение, `declined` — менять не будем, причина в теле"New value: +"How the remark is resolved, and what the body holds:\n- `fixed` — corrected at once; the body states what changed;\n- `accepted` — taken into work as a separate task named in `task`;\n- `needs_detail` — the remark needs clarification; the body holds the concrete question;\n- `declined` — nothing will change; the body gives the reason"

addedInput schema / properties / outcome / enum

Added value: +[
+  "fixed",
+  "accepted",
+  "needs_detail",
+  "declined"
+]

removedInput schema / properties / outcome / examples
```
Removed value: -[
-  "accepted"
-]
```
addedInput schema / properties / outcome / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```

changedInput schema / properties / remark_no / description

Previous value: -"Номер записи `remark` в этой же задаче"New value: +"Number of the `remark` entry in the same task; any other number is refused with `entry_fields_invalid`"

removedInput schema / properties / remark_no / examples
```
Removed value: -[
-  7
-]
```

changedInput schema / properties / task / description

Previous value: -"Ключ задачи, в которую ушла работа. Только с исходом `accepted` и там обязателен: «приняли» без адреса это обещание без ссылки"New value: +"Key of the task the work went to. Required with `accepted` and refused with any other outcome, both as `entry_fields_invalid`"

removedOutput schema / $defs / AuthorKind

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Кто именно сделал действие.\n\n`tracker` — сам трекер: этим родом подписаны служебные записи дела и строки,\nзаведённые командой первичной инициализации. У него нет подписи, потому что\nназывать себя по имени ему незачем: трекер в установке один.",
-  "enum": [
-    "agent",
-    "human",
-    "tracker"
-  ],
-  "title": "AuthorKind",
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedOutput schema / $defs / AuthorView / description

Previous value: -"Кто сделал действие: род и подпись. У самого трекера подписи нет."New value: +"Who acted: kind and signature. The tracker itself has no signature."

removedOutput schema / $defs / AuthorView / properties / kind / $ref
```
Removed value: -"#/$defs/AuthorKind"
```

addedOutput schema / $defs / AuthorView / properties / kind / description

Added value: +"Kind of author. `tracker` signs the service entries the tracker files itself"

addedOutput schema / $defs / AuthorView / properties / kind / enum
```
Added value: +[
+  "agent",
+  "human",
+  "tracker"
+]
```
addedOutput schema / $defs / AuthorView / properties / kind / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```

changedOutput schema / description

Previous value: -"Ответ подшивающего инструмента: чем запись адресуют, без самой записи.\n\n`title` непуст только там, где заголовок собрал трекер: у сводки, ответа, вердикта и\nрезолюции его не принимают вовсе (`app/domain/case.py`, `TITLED_ENTRY_TYPES`). Где\nзаголовок прислал агент, здесь стоит `null` — «в описи ровно то, что ты прислал»."New value: +"A filed entry, by its address rather than its content; the entry in full is\nreturned by `read_entries`."

addedOutput schema / properties / no / description

Added value: +"Entry number in the task's case; with the key it forms `TRK-42#12`"

addedOutput schema / properties / seq / description

Added value: +"Journal sequence number, usable as `after` of `wait_journal`"

addedOutput schema / properties / title / description

Added value: +"The title the tracker built, for entry types whose title is not sent (summary, answer, verdict, resolution, service entries); `null` when the caller sent the title"

First observedSep 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), so the description adds real value by disclosing that every outcome removes the remark from `open_remarks` while `accepted` parks it in `remarks_in_work` until the continuation task closes, plus how the resulting title is composed. It does not cover permissions or preconditions (e.g. remark must be open), leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the state-transition nuance following. No filler, though the second sentence is dense enough to require careful reading.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description only needs to convey non-obvious behavior, and it does so for state transitions and title construction. Missing preconditions/permission context keeps it short of complete.

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%, so all six parameters, including the outcome enum and idempotency_key, are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description adds only the derived-title detail and per-outcome state effects, not new parameter syntax.

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 and resource ("Resolves a remark on a task") and further scopes it with "its outcome and where the work went." An agent can tell this apart from generic entry-writing siblings like add_entry or add_verdict, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains the effect of each outcome and the state it moves the remark into, which implicitly guides selection of the right outcome, but it never says when to use this tool versus ask/answer/add_verdict. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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