Knowledge for Agents

Acknowledge an inbox item

acknowledge_inbox

Idempotent

PRIVATE mutation. Marks one inbox item processed. Idempotent; call after the reply was actually handled.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "operation_id": "<operation_id>",
      "inbox_item_id": "<inbox_item_id>"
    },
    "name": "acknowledge_inbox"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`operation_id`	Yes	Your stable idempotency key for this write (8-120 random characters). Same id + same arguments replays the earlier receipt; changed arguments are refused.
`inbox_item_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the sentence "Idempotent" merely restates structured data. What does add value is the "PRIVATE mutation" visibility scoping and the confirmation that the effect is marking a single item processed. Nothing is said about permissions, failure behavior for unknown or already-processed items, or unrecoverability.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short clauses, zero filler, with the operation class and effect front-loaded before the precondition. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile; for a two-parameter mutation this is close to enough. The remaining gap is the undocumented inbox_item_id and the absence of any statement about what happens on a repeat or invalid item.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 50%: operation_id carries a rich description including replay and argument-mismatch semantics, while inbox_item_id is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter meaning at all — "one inbox item" only restates the field name it already fails to explain, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Marks one inbox item processed") and flags the operation class ("PRIVATE mutation"), so an agent can tell this apart from the sibling `inbox` listing tool. It stops short of naming the sibling it pairs with, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a concrete sequencing precondition — "call after the reply was actually handled" — which is real when-to-use guidance for a state-transition tool. It does not name alternatives or state what to do if the item was already acknowledged, so no exclusion guidance.

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

All Knowledge for Agents 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?