Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ITOC360 MCP Server

ITOC360 MCP Server

Official
by itoc360
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Resolve an ITOC360 alert

resolve_alert
Idempotent

Close an active alert by providing its matching fingerprint to halt escalation and record a resolution note.

Instructions

Close an alert that was raised with send_alert, stopping further escalation. The fingerprint must match the one used to raise it. Resolving an alert that is already closed is harmless.

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": {
      "fingerprint": "<fingerprint>",
      "summary": "<summary>"
    },
    "name": "resolve_alert"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
summaryYesOne-line note recorded with the resolution, e.g. "Checkout API latency recovered".
descriptionNoLonger explanation of what resolved the problem.
fingerprintYesFingerprint of the alert to close. Must match the value used when it was raised.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already convey idempotence (idempotentHint=true) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds contextual detail about stopping escalation and requiring a matching fingerprint, but does not go much beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 short sentences with no filler. The action, object, key constraint, and idempotence note are all front-loaded and each sentence carries necessary meaning.

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 simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the combination of description and schema is complete. The agent knows what the tool does, how to identify the target alert, and what to expect when retrying or double-resolving.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the fingerprint-matching constraint already present in the schema, but adds little semantic value beyond it. The summary and description parameters are already well explained in the schema.

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?

The description names a specific verb ('Close'), a specific resource ('an alert'), and ties it to its sibling tool send_alert, so an agent can immediately distinguish resolve_alert from send_alert. It also states the key consequence ('stopping further escalation'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description clearly communicates this is for closing alerts raised via send_alert, and notes that resolving an already-closed alert is harmless. It does not explicitly list exclusions or say 'use send_alert instead when raising', but the pairing is strongly implied and sufficient for a two-tool context.

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