Inbox Triage

Mark messages read

mark_messages_read

Idempotent

Marks the person's messages read. Works for every inbox type; undo restores the previous state. Messages the person picked: pass each row's inboxId and messageId from show_inbox (the id block at the end of its text, or structuredContent.rows), usually by row number ("archive 2 and 5"). Or pass sender { inboxId, email } to act on that sender's mail still in the inbox, like "archive everything from 2" after review_unsubscribes (up to 50 newest per call). Mail from a VIP is skipped when you act on several messages. Act on a VIP's message alone, and only after the person agrees: in apps that can prompt the person, they are asked directly; otherwise ask in chat and pass vipConfirmed:true. Reporting spam is not done here: it goes through propose_mark_spam then confirm_mark_spam, one message at a time. Work on your own only on a clear instruction or a saved agentRules rule; otherwise suggest and wait. The result has an undoId for undo_view_action, which works once, for 7 days; report counts and the undoId.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "mark_messages_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`items`	No
`sender`	No	Instead of items: every message from this sender still in the inbox
`vipConfirmed`	No	true only after the person agreed in chat to act on this one VIP message

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: undo restores the previous state, the returned undoId is single-use and valid for 7 days, VIP mail is skipped when acting on several messages, and VIP handling requires either an in-app prompt or explicit vipConfirmed:true after chat agreement. It also states the 50-newest cap for sender mode. The no-destructive/no-contradiction profile is consistent with destructiveHint:false and idempotentHint:true.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and nearly every sentence carries operational weight (undo semantics, VIP gating, spam routing). It is dense and long with stacked parentheticals, which slows scanning, but it is not padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description supplies the return contract (counts plus undoId, redeemable once via undo_view_action within 7 days). Combined with the VIP and undo caveats, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and report back.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 67%, and the description compensates: items rows come from show_inbox's id block or structuredContent.rows, typically by row number; sender is an alternative targeting mode; vipConfirmed is gated on people having agreed. That adds the sourcing and the when-to-pass logic the schema cannot express.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Marks the person's messages read') and immediately clarifies the inverse relationship with the sibling mark_messages_unread. It then distinguishes the two mutually exclusive targeting modes (explicit items vs. sender), so an agent knows exactly which shape of call it is making.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit routing: use items for picked messages, use sender for 'archive everything from 2' after review_unsubscribes. It also sets autonomy boundaries ('work on your own only on a clear instruction or a saved agentRules rule; otherwise suggest and wait') and redirects a different intent entirely ('Reporting spam is not done here: it goes through propose_mark_spam then confirm_mark_spam').

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

All Inbox Triage tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?