Updates a notification's status to read using its notification ID, clearing unread job alerts and application updates from your job search workflow.
Mark a single notification as read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notification_id | Yes | The notification ID to mark as read |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and delivers almost nothing: no statement about idempotency, error behavior for an unknown ID, permission requirements, or whether the change is reversible. Only the basic mutation intent is conveyed by the verb.
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 efficient, though its brevity is achieved partly by omitting information that would be useful.
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?
The tool is simple, has one fully documented required parameter, and needs no output schema, so the description is minimally sufficient for invocation. It falls short on the one thing that matters here: disambiguating from the sibling bulk-mark tool.
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 the single parameter (notification_id) is fully documented in the schema, so the description adds no parameter detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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) and resource (a single notification, as read), so the action is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling mark_notifications_read, which performs the same action in bulk — the singular/plural distinction is left for the agent to infer.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to use this for one notification and mark_notifications_read for several, nor what happens if the ID is already read. The presence of a near-identical sibling makes this omission consequential.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.