PerMark

list_unread

Read-only

Lists documents changed since you last read them, newest first. Use it to catch up on what your AI agents wrote and steer their work; optionally set a limit of 1–200 results.

Instructions

Documents changed since the person last read them, newest first.

Tool call template

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": "list_unread"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	1..200, default 50.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.7.0Oct 23, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / limit
```
Added value: +{
+  "description": "1..200, default 50.",
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
```
First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior — results are scoped to what has changed since last read and ordered newest first — but says nothing about pagination beyond the limit, truncation, or what counts as 'changed'.

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?

One short sentence with zero padding, and the most decision-relevant clause (changed since last read) is front-loaded ahead of the ordering detail.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and a documented schema, this is close to sufficient, but it leaves open who 'the person' is (current caller vs. a specific user) and whether results are capped or paginated. No output schema exists, so a brief note on result shape would help.

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 single limit parameter is fully documented in the schema (1..200, default 50), so the schema does the work and baseline 3 applies. The description does not mention limit at all, adding nothing beyond structured data.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Names a specific resource (documents) and a precise filter (changed since the person last read them) plus ordering, so an agent can tell it apart from plain listing tools. It lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'list') and never names a sibling it differs from, so it stops just short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as activity, read, or list_notes, and no exclusions or preconditions. The agent must infer the use case from the name and the one-line summary.

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

Deploy Server