mark_inbox_threadMark a thread read, unread, starred, or archived.
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": {
"body": "<body>"
},
"name": "mark_inbox_thread"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating, potentially destructive operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the flag names; it doesn't explain what archiving does, whether unspecified flags remain unchanged, whether multiple flags can be combined, or what permissions are needed.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, making the tool's surface easy to scan. It borders on being too terse, but the missing detail is a completeness issue rather than verbosity.
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?
This is a destructive nested-parameter mutation with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage. The description gives only a high-level sentence and leaves the required thread_id, the email parameter, flag interaction semantics, and the effect of archiving undocumented.
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 0%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining parameter meaning. It lists four flag names but omits the required thread_id and the email field entirely, and it doesn't clarify that read=false means unread or how the optional flags interact.
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 uses a specific verb, 'Mark,' a clear resource, 'thread,' and enumerates the possible mark states: read, unread, starred, archived. An agent can distinguish it from read_inbox_thread or reply_to_inbox_thread without opening the schema, though it doesn't mention the required thread_id or the email parameter.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like read_inbox_thread or archive_profile, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The description doesn't say whether at least one of the flag fields must be supplied or how this differs from other inbox-mutating tools.
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.