inbox_ackMark one message of your webhook inbox read (acknowledged): inbox_messages with unread: true then leaves it out. Marking it again changes nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message_id | Yes | The message's id from inbox_messages. | |
| instance_id | Yes | Utility instance id from buy or list_utilities. | |
| passport_token | No | Your amp_ token, only if you have no app sign-in and cannot send a header. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "instance_id": "inb_exampleexampleexample2",
+ "message_id": 42
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / passport_token / descriptionPrevious value: -"Your amp_ token, only if your app has no sign-in and cannot send it as an Authorization header."New value: +"Your amp_ token, only if you have no app sign-in and cannot send a header."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful specifics: it removes the message from unread:true filter results and 'marking it again changes nothing'. It doesn't state permission requirements or return shape, but adds real value beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Effectively a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The phrasing is slightly awkward but efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple idempotent ack mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety/idempotency profile, the description covers the needed behavioral effect. No output schema exists, so return expectations aren't required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so message_id and instance_id are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only that the target is one message, which is modest beyond the schema baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (mark read/acknowledged) and resource (one webhook inbox message), and clarifies the observable effect on inbox_messages with unread: true. Distinguishes itself from bulk siblings by specifying 'one message', though 'inbox_ack' vs 'inbox_bulk' isn't explicitly contrasted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'one message' implicitly contrasts with inbox_bulk, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives are given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.