TestGraph

Record the user's deliberation resolution

record_resolution

Idempotent

Close a deliberation with the user's explicit decision. This does not infer consensus: it records accepted contributions and remaining disagreement, and requires user_approved=true. For an induction-guidance deliberation, a successful user-approved resolution becomes active guidance returned by get_induction; AI votes alone have no activation authority.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rationale`	No
`resolution`	Yes
`user_approved`	Yes
`deliberation_id`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	Yes
`unresolved_points`	No
`accepted_contribution_ids`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 30, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / version_check

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Required live deployment token. Call get_server_info immediately before this write and pass write_version_token unchanged. Stale or missing tokens are rejected before any write occurs.",
-  "maxLength": 64,
-  "minLength": 64,
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "deliberation_id",
-  "resolution",
-  "user_approved",
-  "idempotency_key",
-  "version_check"
-]New value: +[
+  "deliberation_id",
+  "resolution",
+  "user_approved",
+  "idempotency_key"
+]

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 26, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / version_check

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Required live deployment token. Call get_server_info immediately before this write and pass write_version_token unchanged. Stale or missing tokens are rejected before any write occurs.",
+  "maxLength": 64,
+  "minLength": 64,
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "deliberation_id",
-  "resolution",
-  "user_approved",
-  "idempotency_key"
-]New value: +[
+  "deliberation_id",
+  "resolution",
+  "user_approved",
+  "idempotency_key",
+  "version_check"
+]

First observedAug 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it does not infer consensus, it records accepted contributions and remaining disagreement, it requires user_approved=true, and only user-approved resolutions can activate guidance for induction deliberations. This meaningfully supplements readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: it states the core action first, then the key behavioral caveat, then the domain-specific side effect. Every sentence adds meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and only basic annotations, the description covers the essential decision semantics, the user-approval requirement, and the important get_induction activation effect. It does not cover error behavior or what happens when user_approved=false, but the core usage context is well specified.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries more responsibility. It helps by mapping 'accepted contributions' to accepted_contribution_ids, 'remaining disagreement' to unresolved_points, and stating user_approved=true. However, it does not explain idempotency_key, rationale, or the exact expected form of resolution, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Close a deliberation with the user's explicit decision.' It also clarifies that the tool does not infer consensus, which helps distinguish it from related deliberation operations. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: it records the user's explicit decision and requires user_approved=true. It also explains when the resolution has downstream effect, such as becoming active guidance for induction-guidance deliberations. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the preconditions are clear.

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

All TestGraph tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools cluster into clear functional families — classification, location, reviews, deliberations, and system — and potentially overlapping operations are explicitly cross-referenced (e.g., enrich_subject vs correct_subject_fact, affirm vs propose reclassification). The main hazard is the resolve_subject / resolve_subject_type / resolve_subject_hierarchy trio, whose near-identical prefixes could mislead an agent at first glance despite well-written descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

The surface is dominated by a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern with stable verb families: get_*, list_*, resolve_*, set_*, save_*, create_*, register_*, and submit_*. Minor deviations — bare-verb fetch and search, and the noun-led vocabulary_index — break the pattern slightly but do not obscure it.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is heavy and above the preferred range, and the classification family alone accounts for ten tools with substantially duplicated vocabulary guidance. The count is partially earned, however, because the server genuinely spans several subsystems — reviews, subject classification, location assertions, deliberations, and governance — each with its own lifecycle.

Completeness4/5

Each subsystem has thorough lifecycle coverage: deliberations (create/claim/contribute/get/list/resolution), reviews (save/fetch/delete/list/visibility), location (assert/list/resolve), and classification (propose/affirm/reopen/relationships/aliases). Minor gaps include no way to edit review content, no direct list-all-subjects endpoint, and no retirement path for fields or aliases.

Resources

Need Help?