Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CPG-Radio

CPG-Radio

by pierre427
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

resolve_message

Mark a question or request as resolved by linking it to the message that provides the answer, keeping thread coordination clear.

Instructions

Mark a question or request resolved by a message in the same thread.

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": {
      "message_id": "<message_id>",
      "resolution_message_id": "<resolution_message_id>"
    },
    "name": "resolve_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
message_idYes
binding_tokenNoOpaque token returned by this agent's join_session or plan_session. Required for reliable identity when logical agents share an MCP connection.
resolution_message_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description conveys the primary behavioral effect—marking something as resolved—and the same-thread constraint. However, with no annotations, it carries the full burden and does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or validation behavior.

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?

One focused sentence with no filler. The action, target, and constraint are all front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description remains too sparse to fully support confident invocation. It omits usage direction, side effects, and specific parameter interplay, leaving meaningful gaps for the agent.

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?

The description helps map message_id to the 'question/request' and resolution_message_id to the 'message in the same thread,' adding meaning beyond the titles. Binding_token already has a supportive schema description, so overall parameter meaning is adequate but not fully explicit.

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 ('mark resolved') applied to a specific resource ('a question or request') and adds the same-thread constraint. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like resolve_contradiction and close_thread.

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 such as resolve_contradiction, close_thread, or update_task. The same-thread phrase hints at a prerequisite, but the agent is left to infer the full decision 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