Inbox Triage

Mark messages unread

mark_messages_unread

Idempotent

Marks the person's messages unread. 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_unread"
  }
}

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

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotent and non-destructive, but the description goes further: undo restores the previous state, the undoId works once for 7 days, the sender path caps at 50 newest per call, VIP mail is skipped in multi-message actions, and VIP single-message actions require confirmation (prompt or vipConfirmed:true). These are behavioral constraints not derivable from 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Core action and scope are front-loaded, and most sentences carry real weight (undo lifetime, VIP skip, spam routing, autonomy rule). It is dense and long for a single tool, and the "archive 2 and 5" / "archive everything from 2" examples reuse a sibling tool's verb, adding small avoidable confusion.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: input sourcing, VIP and spam edge cases, autonomy boundaries, and the return contract (undoId for undo_view_action, valid once for 7 days, plus reporting counts and undoId).

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 67% and the description still adds meaningful semantics: items.resolved from show_inbox's id block or structuredContent.rows and addressable by row number, sender scoped to mail "still in the inbox" with a 50-item cap, and the exact precondition for vipConfirmed. The illustrative examples use the word "archive" for an unread tool, which slightly muddies rather than clarifies the item-selection pattern.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Marks the person's messages unread") and immediately bounds scope with "Works for every inbox type," which distinguishes it from mark_messages_read without ambiguity. An agent knows exactly what the tool does before reading the schema.

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 from show_inbox (id block or structuredContent.rows) for picked messages, or sender {inboxId, email} for bulk-by-sender after review_unsubscribes. It also states spam is NOT handled here and names propose_mark_spam/confirm_mark_spam as the alternative, plus the autonomy rule (act only on clear instruction or saved agentRules, otherwise suggest and wait).

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?