notifications_mark_readMark the signed-in user's own notifications as read. Pass notification_ids for specific ones, or all: true to clear every unread notification at once. Already-read notifications are left untouched.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| all | No | Mark every unread notification read. | |
| notification_ids | No | Specific notifications to mark. Max 500. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description explicitly states that already-read notifications are left untouched, which aligns with and elaborates the idempotentHint. It also clarifies the auth scope ('signed-in user's own') and the all-at-once clearing behavior, adding meaningful behavioral context.
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?
Three short sentences deliver the core action, the two invocation modes, and an important edge-case behavior. The description is front-loaded and every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.
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 covers the key invocation modes and the idempotent behavior, which is sufficient for a simple two-parameter mutation. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly state what happens when neither parameter is provided, but the 'or' phrasing strongly implies that one should be chosen.
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?
While the schema already covers both parameters at 100%, the description adds the 'or' relationship between notification_ids and all: true, implying these are alternative ways to invoke the tool. It also clarifies that already-read notifications are unaffected, which is useful behavioral meaning beyond the schema descriptions.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Mark the signed-in user's own notifications as read.' It clearly defines the tool's scope and distinguishes it from siblings like notifications_delete or notifications_get by focusing on the mark-read action.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: for the signed-in user's own notifications, with guidance on choosing between specific IDs or 'all: true'. It doesn't explicitly name alternative sibling tools or exclusions, but the intended use cases are clear enough.
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.
Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern and the descriptions are unusually precise about boundaries. A few near-overlaps remain: projects_get_finance vs projects_get_financials, and notes_create vs crm_log_activity on a deal are both plausible for recording a note on a deal.
The domain_prefix_action convention is consistent across nearly all tools, e.g. crm_create_lead, projects_update_risk, timelog_approve_time. Deviations include standalone list_trash, meta tools like whoami/tool_search/tool_invoke, and the confusing projects_get_finance/projects_get_financials pair.
With 105 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ threshold defined as an extreme mismatch. Even for a full ERP/CRM suite, the fine-grained split—39 project tools alone—creates a massive tool-selection surface that is hard for an agent to navigate reliably.
The surface covers CRM, projects, tasks, time/expenses, HR, notes, notifications, contracts, and reporting with create/read/update/delete for most primary entities. Minor gaps exist: crm_log_activity has no read-back path, contracts lack delete/restore, and proposals are intentionally read-only, but agents can work around these.