insourcia

mark_news_read

Idempotent

Marque comme lus des signaux precis de la veille de l'utilisateur (page /news de l'app Insourcia).

Utiliser cet outil APRES avoir presente les signaux a l'utilisateur, quand il confirme les avoir traites ("ok j'ai vu", "marque-les comme lus").

Fonctionnement :

Prend les "read_key" renvoyees par get_news, telles quelles. Ne JAMAIS inventer ni reconstruire une cle : appeler get_news d'abord et recopier la valeur. Leur format varie selon le type de signal, ne pas s'y fier.
Idempotent : une cle deja lue est ignoree (comptee dans already_read), sans erreur ni doublon.
Marquage cible uniquement : il n'existe volontairement pas de "tout marquer lu" via l'API, pour ne pas effacer par erreur la file de tri de l'utilisateur.
N'efface rien : la ligne reste visible dans l'app, elle passe simplement de "nouveau" a "lu".
Ne modifie pas la date de derniere visite de l'utilisateur sur /news.

Reponse : { marked_read, already_read, unread_remaining, url (page /news) }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`context`	Yes	Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): "Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization."
`read_keys`	Yes	Cles "read_key" recopiees telles quelles depuis la reponse de get_news (leur format varie selon le type de signal). Max 500 par appel.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`marked_read`	Yes
`already_read`	Yes
`unread_remaining`	Yes

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that already-read keys are ignored and counted in already_read, that nothing is deleted and rows remain visible, that the user's last-visit date is not modified, and that the response contains marked_read, already_read, unread_remaining, and url. This fully aligns with the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well structured and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by concise bullet sections. Every sentence adds operational value: when to use, how to obtain keys, idempotence, exclusions, side effects, and response shape. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with only two parameters and a fully described schema plus an output schema, the description is complete. It covers prerequisites, sequencing, constraints, side effects, and response fields, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without additional inference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already covers 100% of the parameters, including a detailed description for context. The description adds meaningful semantic guidance for read_keys, emphasizing that keys must be copied verbatim from get_news and that their format varies and must not be reconstructed or inferred.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: it marks precise news signals as read on the Insourcia /news page. It also clarifies the scope by explicitly stating that targeted marking is intentional and no bulk 'mark all read' API exists, which separates it from any broader operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: after presenting signals to the user and after the user confirms they have handled them. It also directs the agent to call get_news first and copy the returned read_keys verbatim, while noting that there is deliberately no mark-all endpoint.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All insourcia tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct resource+action purposes, and the descriptions explicitly contrast near-neighbor tools like search_companies vs resolve_companies and get_events vs search_events. The only real risk is the trio of director-oriented tools, especially search_director_companies vs search_companies with dirigeant filters, which requires careful reading to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 18 tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: search_, get_, list_, create_, watch_, unwatch_, mark_, resolve_. Singular names are used for single-entity actions and plural for list/search operations, making the pattern predictable. There is no camelCase, vague verb, or style mixing.

Tool Count4/5

18 tools is slightly above the ideal 10-15 range, but the count is justified by the broad domain covering search, company intelligence, watchlists, and news. Each tool appears to earn its place, and there are no obvious stubs or redundant duplicates. It feels a bit heavy but not bloated.

Completeness3/5

The company intelligence surface is very complete: search, deep company data, financials, directors, group graphs, events, and credit risk are all covered. Watchlists also have full add/remove/list coverage, but saved searches have a notable lifecycle gap—create and list exist, yet there is no update, delete, or alert-toggle for existing saved searches, creating a management dead end.

Resources

Need Help?