TgPilot

mark_read

Marks a specified Telegram chat as read to clear its unread status and keep message tracking current.

Instructions

Mark a chat as read.

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": {
      "chat": "<chat>"
    },
    "name": "mark_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chat`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and supplies none of it. It does not say what is changed (unread counters, read receipts visible to other participants), whether the change applies to the entire chat history or only up to now, or whether it is reversible or requires membership/permissions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a serious gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined concision for a mutation tool.

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

Completeness2/5

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, but the description still omits side effects, scope of the read marker, and the identifier format for the sole required parameter. For a mutation with no annotations and no schema text, this is not enough for an agent to invoke it confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the single 'chat' parameter is documented nowhere. The description only implies that a chat must be identified, but never states the accepted identifier form (numeric ID, username, or dialog link), which is exactly the meaning the description needed to add.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource (mark a chat as read), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like read_messages or unread_digest, which an agent may weigh when deciding how to clear unread state.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_messages or unread_digest. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no statement of what condition calls for marking a chat read are given.

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