mark_inbox_readClears the unread count. Deliberately all-or-nothing over MCP: marking individual ids read is a click in the dashboard, where the person can see what they are dismissing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| unread | Yes | The count the bell shows. |
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?
The description states the direct effect (clearing unread count) and the scope (all-or-nothing). It does not explicitly mention every potential side effect, but the all-or-nothing phrasing and the contrast with individual marking make the behavior sufficiently clear.
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, using two short sentences that convey purpose, scope, and rationale without extraneous detail.
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?
The description fully covers what the tool does and why it is designed that way. Since an output schema is present, return-value details are not required. No important context 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?
There are no parameters to describe, and the schema coverage is complete. No additional parameter guidance is needed.
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 action ('Clears the unread count') and the title identifies the inbox as the target. It also distinguishes this tool from dashboard-based individual marking by emphasizing the all-or-nothing behavior.
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 explicitly explains when to use this tool versus the dashboard: it is deliberately all-or-nothing over MCP, while individual-id marking is relegated to the dashboard. This gives clear guidance without ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.