Mark a single notification as read. Use campaignstack_list_notifications to find notificationId values. To mark all notifications read at once, use campaignstack_mark_all_notifications_read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notificationId | Yes |
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?
Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which cover the key behavioral safety traits. The description adds the single-item scope but does not mention what happens if the notification is already read, authorization requirements, or response behavior. It 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?
The description is two short sentences with the core action first and guidance about related tools second. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose, and there is no unnecessary detail or repetition.
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 single-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering idempotence and destructiveness, this description is complete. It identifies the target operation, the source for the required parameter, and the distinction from the bulk-marking sibling, so an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by telling the agent exactly where to obtain valid notificationId values ('Use campaignstack_list_notifications'). The schema already defines the parameter as a non-empty string, so the missing piece was the source of valid values, which the description provides.
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 states a specific verb ('Mark') and a precise object and scope ('a single notification as read'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the bulk variant by emphasizing 'single', making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 tells the agent to use campaignstack_list_notifications to find notificationId values, and identifies campaignstack_mark_all_notifications_read as the alternative when marking all notifications is desired. This is clear, specific guidance for tool selection.
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.
The set is enormous and generally well-differentiated through detailed cross-referenced descriptions, but several clusters blur together: archive/delete/remove have inconsistent permanence semantics (delete_campaign vs remove_signal_watch vs archive_campaign), create_connection_watch_agent explicitly overlaps with set_account_watcher, and the parallel draft-checkup and playbook-proposal flows (run_draft_checkup/get_draft_checkup/accept_draft_checkup vs propose_playbook_change/get_playbook_proposal/decide_playbook_proposal) present near-identical decision pipelines.
Nearly every tool follows the campaignstack_<verb>_<noun> convention with disciplined get/list pairing and consistent verb choices (create/update/delete/pause/resume). Minor deviations like campaignstack_priority_enrich (adverb+verb) and campaignstack_whoami break the strict verb_noun pattern but are isolated and do not hinder navigation.
223 tools is an extreme surface for any MCP server. Even though each tool maps to a distinct API operation and the underlying platform is broad, the scale far exceeds the 50+ threshold for an extreme mismatch and will overwhelm agents with selection overhead.
The surface is exhaustive for the LinkedIn outreach domain: full campaign/workflow/lead-list lifecycles, ICP and persona management, content scheduling and approvals, inbox and messaging, enrichment and integrations, signal watches and exclusions, review queues, playbook versioning, workspace admin, billing, and notifications. Minor gaps like a missing delete_lead or delete_company are explained by shared-data semantics, so no critical dead ends remain.
