Marks a sink event as processed by your consumer to prevent duplicate handling. Use after successfully processing an event by its ID.
Mark a sink event as processed by your consumer. Idempotent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The sink event ID (positive integer, as returned by ls_sink_events_list). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds 'Idempotent', which is already declared in annotations (idempotentHint=true). With annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description adds minimal behavioral context. It does not explain side effects or what happens if the event is already marked processed, but annotations are sufficient for basic transparency.
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?
The description is two sentences: the first states the core action, the second adds idempotency. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no unnecessary words.
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?
Given the simple one-parameter tool with good schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the action and its idempotency. It implicitly assumes the event exists (via parameter description linking to ls_sink_events_list). No output schema needed. Slightly incomplete regarding post-condition, but sufficient for typical use.
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 coverage is 100%; the parameter 'id' is well-documented in the schema as 'The sink event ID (positive integer, as returned by ls_sink_events_list).' The description does not add any further parameter details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description states 'Mark a sink event as processed' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like ls_sink_events_list (list events) and ls_sink_stats (stats). The idempotent hint is also included, further clarifying the purpose.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain that it should be called after processing an event or how it differs from ls_sink_events_list or ls_sink_stats. The description only mentions 'by your consumer' as a vague usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.