Mark several emails as read in one batch using their UIDs, optionally within a chosen folder, to update read status without opening each message.
Mark multiple emails as read using their UIDs. Batch operation for efficiently updating read status of several emails at once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uids | Yes | ||
| folder | No | INBOX |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that this is a batch mutation; it says nothing about behavior for unknown/invalid UIDs, idempotency of re-marking already-read mail, required auth, or whether folder changes the target set. For an unannotated write tool this is a significant gap.
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 short sentences with zero filler, front-loading the action and identifier mechanism. It is efficiently sized, though the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first.
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 batch mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description should explain folder targeting, invalid-UID behavior, and return/result semantics. It leaves all of these 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 and largely fails. It mentions UIDs but gives no format, type, or batching limits, and it never mentions the optional `folder` parameter or its 'INBOX' default, leaving a full parameter undocumented in both places.
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 as read') and resource ('multiple emails'), and the phrase 'multiple emails ... batch operation' implicitly distinguishes it from the single-item sibling markAsRead. It stops short of naming the sibling or the folder scope, so differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.
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?
'Batch operation for efficiently updating read status of several emails at once' implies the use case (many emails), which quietly distinguishes it from markAsRead. However, it never states when to prefer this over markAsRead/markAsUnread, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.