time-messenger-mcp-server

mark_thread_read

Mark a thread as read up to a specific timestamp, clearing unread status. Provide team and thread IDs, with an optional timestamp to specify the read cutoff.

Instructions

Mark a thread as read up to a specific timestamp

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": {
      "team_id": "<team_id>",
      "thread_id": "<thread_id>"
    },
    "name": "mark_thread_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`team_id`	Yes	Team ID
`thread_id`	Yes	Thread ID (root post ID)
`timestamp`	No	Unix timestamp in milliseconds (optional, defaults to now)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states the action ('mark as read') without disclosing side effects, permissions required, reversibility, or impact on unread counts or threads.

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?

A single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core function.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but lacks behavioral context (e.g., what happens after marking, idempotency, or error conditions). The schema covers parameters, so it is not incomplete on that front.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal value beyond restating the 'timestamp' concept, but does not clarify parameter relationships or provide additional context.

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 ('mark') and resource ('thread' as read) with a clear qualifier ('up to a specific timestamp'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like follow_thread/unfollow_thread and get_thread_messages, which have different purposes.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., follow_thread, get_channel_unread). It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools for related operations.

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