mark_notifications_readMark notifications as read — specific ids, or all of them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| all | No | Set true to mark every notification read | |
| ids | No | Specific notification IDs to mark read |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Confirmation, and how many notifications were marked read. | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Confirmation, and how many notifications were marked read."
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "description": "True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that the operation is not read-only and not destructive, so the description adds useful scoping context but no additional side-effect disclosure such as idempotency, irreversibility, or behavior when both all and ids are provided. The description does not contradict 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word earns its place and the key distinction (specific vs all notifications) is delivered immediately.
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?
For a low-complexity tool with two fully described optional parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The only small gap is that it does not state the effect of supplying neither all nor ids.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains the boolean all flag and the ids array, so the description mostly paraphrases the schema. It adds no new parameter meaning such as the relationship between all and ids when both are supplied.
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?
Description states a specific action ('Mark notifications as read') on a specific resource ('notifications'), with the scoping options 'specific ids, or all of them.' This makes it semantically distinct from siblings like archive_notifications and clear_read_notifications without needing to open the schema.
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 phrase 'specific ids, or all of them' implies two usage modes and maps directly to the all and ids parameters, so an agent can infer when to use each. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as clear_read_notifications or archive_notifications, nor what happens when no arguments are supplied.
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.