Acknowledge an inbox message after you have read and handled it
(pass the item's id). Required for urgent messages — they are
redelivered on every read until acked or expired. Idempotent: re-acking
returns ok with already_acked: true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| upgrade_url | No | ||
| already_acked | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavior: urgent messages are redelivered on every read until acked or expired, and re-acking returns already_acked: true. It also implies a mutation is performed while being safe, consistent with 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?
Three sentences, each providing essential information: when to ack, why urgent acks matter, and the idempotent behavior. The main action is front-loaded, and there is no filler.
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 single-parameter acknowledgement tool, the description is complete: it covers purpose, timing, urgency requirements, redelivery behavior, and idempotency. The output schema can handle return-value expectations, so nothing critical is missing.
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?
The single required parameter message_id has 0% schema description coverage, but the description compensates by telling the agent to 'pass the item's id.' This clarifies that message_id refers to the inbox message's identifier. It does not say where to obtain the id, but for one parameter this is enough context.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Acknowledge an inbox message after you have read and handled it.' It clearly explains the action and what object it applies to. The tool's purpose is distinct from all listed siblings, so an agent can identify it without ambiguity.
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 description gives clear usage timing: acknowledge only after reading and handling the message. It also explains that urgent messages require acknowledgement and will be redelivered otherwise. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the context is sufficient for this simple tool.
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.
Most tools map cleanly to distinct resource+action pairs: projects, tasks, skills, user rules, memory, and messaging are all clearly separated. The main ambiguity is update_task versus update_task_state, since update_task can also change state and plan_status, though the descriptions do point to the narrow intended use.
The naming is largely consistent verb_noun snake_case: create_project, update_skill, delete_task, list_projects, get_context, save_turn. Minor deviations include recent_messages lacking a verb, remove_user_rule versus delete_* style, and singular user_rule in mutations versus plural user_rules in listing.
With 27 tools, the server is over the typical well-scoped MCP range, even though it covers several domains. Some consolidation is possible, such as folding update_task_state into update_task and reducing the overlapping retrieval/search tools.
The tool set provides strong lifecycle coverage for projects, tasks, skills, and user rules, plus memory retrieval, agent messaging, and onboarding help. Minor gaps exist, like no standalone get_task or list_tasks and no explicit inbox listing, but get_project and get_context largely cover those needs.
