rootcause-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

rc_mark_root_cause

Mark a node as the root cause in a clinical incident analysis, pinpointing the fundamental issue that requires action.

Instructions

Mark a WhyNode as the identified root cause. This indicates the analysis has reached a fundamental cause that requires action.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "node_id": "<node_id>"
    },
    "name": "rc_mark_root_cause"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`session_id`	Yes	The session ID
`node_id`	Yes	The WhyNode ID to mark as root cause
`confidence`	No	Confidence level (0.0-1.0)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says it 'indicates the analysis has reached a fundamental cause that requires action', but does not disclose what changes occur, e.g., if the node is locked, if effects are reversible, or if confirmation is needed.

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, front-loaded with the action, no extraneous words. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but lacks behavioral and usage context that would fully inform an 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain the confidence parameter or how to choose the node_id.

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 'Mark' and the resource 'WhyNode as the identified root cause', and distinguishes this from sibling tools like rc_add_cause or rc_confirm_classification by specifying the action of marking the root cause.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as rc_confirm_classification or rc_add_cause. It does not specify prerequisites or situations where marking a root cause is appropriate.

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