Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
huly-mcp-selfhost

huly-mcp-selfhost

by JoKeks2023
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

mark_notifications_read

Mark Huly notifications as read by workspace, object, specific IDs, or all at once, and optionally archive them to clear your inbox.

Instructions

Mark notifications read (by object, ids or all); optionally archive

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": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>"
    },
    "name": "mark_notifications_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
allNoMark everything read
objectNoIssue id or object id: read all its notifications
archiveNoAlso archive
workspaceYes
notificationIdsNoFrom list_notifications

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.5.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description's note that archiving is an optional extra side effect adds real value beyond the structured data. It still omits whether marking read is reversible, whether partial failures are possible, or what the call returns.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and folds the targeting modes and optional archive into one clause. No filler text.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a five-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers all targeting paths and the archive side effect, which is most of what an agent needs. It is slightly thin on required workspace scoping and on error/partial-success behavior.

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?

Schema coverage is 80%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds a useful cross-reference that notificationIds come from list_notifications behaviorally, but otherwise restates the modes the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Mark notifications read") and enumerates the three targeting modes (object, ids, all) plus the optional archive side effect. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like manage_notifications or 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The parenthetical "by object, ids or all" implicitly tells the agent how to choose a targeting mode, and the ids parameter is tied to list_notifications. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus manage_notifications, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools