mark_notifications_readMark specific notifications as read by ID, or set all=true to clear every notification at once.
Mark notifications as read — either specific ids, or all of them at once with all=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| all | No | Mark every notification read. Ignores ids. | |
| ids | No | Notification ids to mark read. |
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 as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation with openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the two-mode behavior, not what gets persisted, whether the change is reversible, or 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 front-loaded sentence that names the action first and the two modes second, with no filler or restatement of the title.
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, zero-required mutation tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient to invoke correctly. It could optionally note the typical list-then-mark flow, but nothing essential is missing.
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 both parameters are documented there, including that 'all' ignores 'ids'. The description echoes the same split without adding format, limits, or precedence detail beyond the schema, 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 (mark read) and resource (notifications), and distinguishes the two operating modes (specific ids vs all=true) clearly enough that an agent can pick it out from the sibling list_notifications. It does not explicitly contrast itself with list_notifications, so it stops 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the two invocation paths ('specific ids, or all of them at once with all=true'), which is useful for choosing between parameters, but it offers no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or the list_notifications counterpart that usually precedes it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.