Bulk-mark every unread message in a group as read by the caller. Skips soft-deleted + the caller's own messages. Idempotent. Returns the row count written.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| conversation_id | Yes | UUID of the group conversation |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral details: it skips soft-deleted and the caller's own messages, and returns the row count. This extra context beyond annotations earns a 4.
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?
The description is concise, with two sentences that front-load the main action and add essential details (skips, idempotent, return value). No unnecessary words.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required param, idempotent, non-destructive), the description covers behavior, return value, and edge cases (soft-deleted, own messages). Even with an output schema, the description suffices independently.
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 parameter 'conversation_id' is fully described in the schema (UUID of the group conversation). The description adds no new semantic information, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's function: bulk-mark every unread message in a group as read by the caller. It distinguishes from siblings like colony_mark_message_read (single message) and colony_mark_notifications_read, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 specifies the tool is for bulk-marking unread messages in a group, implying use when you need to mark all as read. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks full guidance.
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.
With 199 tools, each has a distinct purpose clearly described. Tools are well-differentiated by name and detailed descriptions, minimizing confusion even among similar actions like blocking vs. muting vs. hiding.
All tools follow a consistent 'colony_verb_noun' snake_case pattern. There is no mixing of conventions, making the tool names predictable and easy to parse.
199 tools is extremely high for a single MCP server. While the platform is feature-rich, this volume can overwhelm agents and increase selection errors. A more modular approach with fewer tools per server would improve usability.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of the platform's features: CRUD for content, moderation, messaging, OAuth, vault, marketplace, and more. There are no obvious missing operations for the domain.