mark_conversation_readMarks one Canvas Inbox conversation as read for your account only; the sender is not notified. Use the conversation ID from list_conversations to clear its unread status.
Mark one Inbox conversation as read. Only affects you; the sender is not notified. Reverse with mark_conversation_unread.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| conversation_id | Yes | Inbox conversation ID (numeric string). Get it from list_conversations. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Input schema / properties / conversation_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Canvas ID (numeric string)"New value: +"Inbox conversation ID (numeric string). Get it from list_conversations."v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the mutation and safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context: the change only affects the caller, the sender is not notified, and the action is reversible via mark_conversation_unread. It does not clarify idempotency, but annotations already cover that.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by scope and reversibility. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple one-parameter mutation, this is complete: the schema documents the parameter, annotations cover the safety profile, and the description explains user scope, notification behavior, and reversal.
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 100%, and the schema already documents conversation_id and where to obtain it. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: mark one Inbox conversation as read. The word 'one' distinguishes it from batch or mark-all siblings, and it is clearly distinct from mark_conversation_unread.
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?
The single-conversation context is clear, and it names mark_conversation_unread as the reverse operation. It does not explicitly say when to use this instead of mark_all_entries_read or batch_update_conversations, so it falls short of full alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.