time-messenger-mcp-server

mark_channels_read

Marks all available channels or selected channel IDs as read, covering public, private, DM, and group channels while excluding followed threads; use the thread-specific action for threads.

Instructions

Mark all available channels or selected channel IDs as read; this action cannot be undone. The all mode includes public, private, DM, and group channels. Followed threads are excluded; use mark_thread_read for threads.

Tool call template

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": {
      "mode": "<mode>"
    },
    "name": "mark_channels_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	Yes
`channel_ids`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.4.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it flags irreversibility ("cannot be undone") and defines the blast radius of 'all' mode (public, private, DM, group) plus the thread exclusion. It stops short of stating permission requirements or what the result looks like, which a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage could still add.

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?

Two tight sentences with the irreversibility warning and thread exclusion front-loaded; no filler and every clause carries information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No annotations and no output schema, yet the description covers safety (irreversible), scope, and sibling routing. It is nearly complete for a 2-param mutation, with only the mode/channel_ids conditional relationship left unstated.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it meaningfully expands the 'all' enum value and implies channel_ids is used for 'selected' mode. It never states that channel_ids is required when mode=selected or ignored when mode=all, leaving a real ambiguity given additionalProperties=false.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Mark ... channels ... as read") and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling mark_thread_read, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it ("Followed threads are excluded; use mark_thread_read for threads"), plus clarifies what the 'all' mode covers so the agent knows which mode fits its intent.

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