Skip to main content
Glama
mikimatsub

swsd-mcp

by mikimatsub
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

swsd_link_solution_to_incident

Idempotent

Link a knowledge-base solution to an SWSD incident. Fetches the incident, appends the solution to existing linked solutions, and PUTs the updated list. Idempotent: returns success if already linked.

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. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds significant context beyond that: the exact read-modify-write sequence, the distinction between write and read shapes, the preservation of existing links, and the explicit note that it does not retry on transient failure. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and reliability.

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?

Four sentences, each delivering essential information without redundancy: action, operational mechanism (fetch-read-append-put), idempotency, and retry policy. The most critical detail (write shape) is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the operation sequence, idempotency, write shape, and failure handling, which is adequate for a write tool without an output schema. It lacks explicit mention of success criteria or response format, but given the tool's complexity and the detailed schema, it is nearly 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%, with both parameters thoroughly described including digit-count auto-detection. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific details, but since the schema fully handles semantics, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb 'Attach' and resource 'knowledge-base solution to an incident'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by mentioning the write shape ('solution_ids') vs the read shape, and emphasizes idempotency, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to link a solution to an incident) and implies its uniqueness through the read-modify-write mechanism. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., swsd_update_incident) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Install Server

Other Tools