conversation_readMark an unread conversation as read by providing the organization ID and conversation ID, keeping support inbox status accurate.
Mark an unread conversation as read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| conversationId | Yes | The conversation id. | |
| organizationId | Yes | The organization id. Use organization_list to find it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, and the description is consistent with that. It adds the 'unread' targeting context, which is mild value, but omits what happens when the conversation is already read, whether the change is reversible, and any permission requirements.
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?
A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though it does nothing to route the agent among siblings.
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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the essentials are present. Still missing is any statement of the effect on an already-read conversation or the return behavior, which matters given idempotentHint=false.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters carry descriptions, including a pointer to organization_list for organizationId. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Specific verb+resource combination ('mark ... as read' for a 'conversation') that an agent can act on. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like conversation_update or conversation_close, but the operation is unambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. whether the caller must be a member of the conversation), and no mention of alternatives such as conversation_update. The 'unread' precondition is implied but never explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.