Marks all emails as read, optionally limited to a specific sender or mailbox. Use it to clear unread badges in bulk, with a dry run to preview changes first.
Mark all emails as read, optionally filtered by sender
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dryRun | No | If true, report exactly what would change and do not modify anything | |
| sender | No | Optional: only mark emails from this sender as read | |
| mailbox | No | Mailbox (default INBOX) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.8.0Input schema / properties / dryRunAdded value: +{
+ "description": "If true, report exactly what would change and do not modify anything",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v2.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly doesn't: it never states that this is a mutating write, that it can affect the whole account (not just INBOX), whether it's reversible, or what permissions/auth are needed. 'Optionally filtered by sender' is the only scope qualifier offered for what is potentially a mass state change.
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 tight sentence with the operation front-loaded and the qualifier trailing it; nothing is wasted and there is no filler.
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 3-parameter bulk operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is only minimally complete: it omits the account-wide scope, reversibility, and any pointer to the single-message alternative. Schema coverage compensates for parameters, but behavioral context for a bulk mutation is thin.
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%, so dryRun, sender, and mailbox are already documented in the schema with their defaults and semantics. The description's 'optionally filtered by sender' only restates what the schema says, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the 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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Mark all emails as read') plus the optional sender filter, so the operation is unmistakable. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as mark_as_read (single message) or bulk_mark_unread, leaving the agent to infer the bulk/scope distinction on its own.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no scenario in which this beats mark_as_read or mark_older_than_read, and no mention of opting into the safe dryRun path even though that parameter exists. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.