Mark a thread as discussed now and optionally record a user-confirmed status; only set status when the user explicitly rules, never from silence.
Mark a thread discussed NOW. Set status ONLY if the user ruled on it — status records what they said, never what silence suggested.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| note | No | ||
| status | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the semantic of touching a thread as 'NOW' and the inferential rule for status, but says nothing about what happens to the note field, idempotency, or whether prior timestamps are overwritten.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the constraint. The emphasized status rule is verbose but earns its place as the tool's key behavioral guardrail.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a mutation tool with zero annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves name/note behavior and mutation side effects unspecified.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies status semantics ('records what they said, never what silence suggested'); name and note are completely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 a thread discussed NOW'), which is clear intent, but does not distinguish itself from the sibling track_thread, so an agent can't tell the two apart from the description alone.
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?
Provides a real usage rule for the status parameter ('Set status ONLY if the user ruled on it'), which is genuinely useful guidance. However, there is no when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance, notably nothing distinguishing it from track_thread.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.