Mark every notification read. (confirm-gated: previews until confirm: true)
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "mark_all_notifications_read"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Must be true to actually execute. If false/omitted, returns a preview only. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does disclose the preview/execute split. However, that same information is already spelled out in the confirm parameter's schema description, and the description says nothing about irreversibility or whether already-read and archived notifications are also affected.
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, purpose first, gating behavior second, zero filler.
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?
A simple one-parameter bulk mutation with no output schema; the description plus schema covers what an agent needs to call it safely. The only gap is the scope of 'every' (which notification classes are included).
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 coverage is 100% and the single confirm parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of confirm merely repeats that, adding no new semantics such as what the preview response contains.
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 specific verb and resource with explicit scope: 'Mark every notification read.' The 'every' scope implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling mark_notifications_read, though that sibling is never named.
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?
Conveys the confirm-gated workflow (preview first, execute with confirm: true), which is useful operational context. It does not say when to choose this over mark_notifications_read or when a bulk mark-all is appropriate.
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.