Skip to main content
Glama

Mark read or unread

mail_mark_read
Idempotent

Marks a message read (default) or unread. Use it after handling a message, or to flag something for the user's attention by marking it unread. Example: { "message_id": "msg_…", "read": false }.

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": {
      "message_id": "<message_id>"
    },
    "name": "mail_mark_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
readNotrue = read, false = unread.
message_idYesA message id (`msg_…`) from a list or search.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
is_readYes
message_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile: non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description only restates the schema default (read=true) and implies reversibility; it adds no context about idempotency, threading effects, or whether unread state affects notifications. Useful but thin beyond structured data.

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?

Two sentences plus one compact example; the default state is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place. No filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and both params are fully described in the schema. The definition is sufficient to invoke correctly; only the relationship to mail_flag is left implicit.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the read=true/false mapping and the msg_ prefix format for ids. The example payload reinforces this but adds no syntax or constraint the schema doesn't already carry. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

A specific verb (marks) plus resource (message) and the two possible states (read/unread) with the default called out. It clearly separates this from list/get siblings, though it never names the nearest neighbour, mail_flag, which is the tool an agent might confuse with 'flagging for attention'.

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?

Two concrete usage contexts are given: 'after handling a message' and 'to flag something for the user's attention'. That's real when-to-use guidance, but there is no when-not guidance or explicit alternative (e.g. mail_flag for importance marking).

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources