Skip to main content
Glama
mikimatsub

swsd-mcp

by mikimatsub
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

swsd_link_solution_to_incident

Idempotent

Link a knowledge-base solution to an incident by appending its ID to the existing linked solutions, preserving prior links. Idempotent, so already-linked solutions return success without changes.

Instructions

Attach a knowledge-base solution to an incident. Fetches the incident first, reads its existing linked solutions, appends the new one (preserving others), then PUTs with solution_ids (the SWSD write shape — distinct from the read shape solutions). Idempotent — if the solution is already linked, returns success without modifying the record. WRITE — does not retry on transient failure.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
incident_idYesSWSD incident reference. Accepts either the internal id (>=7 digits, e.g. 180457930) or the human-facing number (<=6 digits, e.g. 60310). The handler auto-detects via digit count.
solution_idYesSWSD solution reference. Accepts either the internal id (>=7 digits) or the human-facing number (<=4 digits). Use swsd_search_solutions to find one. The handler auto-detects via digit count.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the read-modify-write sequence (fetch, read existing solutions, append, PUT), the write-shape vs read-shape distinction (`solution_ids` vs `solutions`), idempotency semantics ('returns success without modifying'), and no-retry-on-transient-failure behavior. The no-retry and shape details are not covered by annotations, adding genuine value.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then tightly packs the mechanism, shape distinction, idempotency, and failure behavior into a few dense sentences. Nearly every clause earns its place.

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 stateful mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers mechanism, side effects, idempotency, retry posture, and shape needed to call it correctly. Annotations and rich schema cover the rest, so nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds the `solution_ids` write-shape naming context, which is useful API detail, but no additional syntax beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Attach a knowledge-base solution to an incident') and the description makes clear this is a specialized link operation rather than a generic incident update. An agent can distinguish it from swsd_update_incident and swsd_search_solutions without opening a schema.

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 implies the use case (link a KB solution to an incident) but offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance in the description itself; the routing hint ('use swsd_search_solutions') lives only in the parameter schema. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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