FogBugz

Resolve Case

resolve_case

Destructive

Mark a FogBugz case as fixed or completed by providing the case ID and optional resolution details.

Instructions

Resolves (marks as fixed/completed) a FogBugz case. Example: resolve case 42 with comment "Fixed in commit abc123".

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": {
      "caseId": "<caseId>"
    },
    "name": "resolve_case"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`caseId`	Yes	The ID of the case to resolve
`comment`	No	Comment to add when resolving. Plain text only.
`ixStatus`	No	Status ID to resolve with (use api_request with cmd=listStatuses to find valid IDs)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.8Apr 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate this is a destructive write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds valuable context by specifying what 'resolves' means ('marks as fixed/completed') and provides an example showing comment usage, though it doesn't mention permissions, side effects, or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences: one declarative statement of purpose, one concrete example. Zero waste, front-loaded with the core action, and the example efficiently demonstrates multiple parameters in context.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a destructive mutation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic operation but lacks details on response format, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools. The example helps, but more context would be beneficial given the complexity.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description's example mentions 'case 42' and comment 'Fixed in commit abc123', which reinforces parameter usage but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the verb ('resolves'), resource ('a FogBugz case'), and specific action ('marks as fixed/completed'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'close_case', 'reopen_case', and 'update_case' by specifying this is for resolution with status changes and comments.

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 provides an example that implies usage for marking cases as fixed/completed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'close_case' or 'update_case'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is given.

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