mark a conversation as read. requires write scope.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "mark_conversation_read"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | conversation ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The added 'requires write scope' clause reinforces auth needs, but the description says nothing about idempotency, whether the unread counter is decremented, or what happens if the conversation is already read.
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?
Two short sentences, action first, prerequisite second, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.
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, non-destructive mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and auth. Only minor behavioral details (idempotency, effect on unread counts) are missing.
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%, with the single 'id' parameter documented as a UUID conversation ID. The description adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a clear verb and resource ('mark a conversation as read'), and the singular 'a conversation' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling mark_all_notifications_read. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives, so it doesn't reach a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and description: call it when you need to clear the unread state for one conversation. The 'requires write scope' clause gives a prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to the bulk sibling for marking multiple items.
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.