Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

artsonia-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Mark a student's feedback as read

artsonia_mark_feedback_read
Destructive

Mark all teacher feedback for a student as read, clearing unread status in your Artsonia view. Provide the student's artist_id; runs immediately with no per-item control.

Instructions

Mark the student's teacher feedback as read (this is a mark-ALL action — Artsonia has no per-item control). Runs immediately, with no confirmation step: it only changes the read state in your own view.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
artist_idYesStudent artist_id (from artsonia_list_students).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.3.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 \"confirmation-required\" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. First observedv1.2.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds meaningful context beyond them: execution is immediate with no confirmation step, the effect is bulk (all feedback), and it only alters the read state in the caller's own view. The last point sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=true but reads as useful scope clarification rather than a contradiction.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the behavioral caveats. No filler, no repetition of the title or schema.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, immediacy, lack of confirmation, and the read-state-only effect — enough for an agent to invoke it safely. Minor gaps remain around reversibility and whether the change is idempotent, but nothing essential is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter (artist_id) is documented in-schema with its pattern and source tool, so the description carries no additional parameter burden. It adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline-3 outcome 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.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('mark the student's teacher feedback as read') and immediately disambiguates scope by declaring it a mark-ALL action with no per-item control. An agent can distinguish it from the read-oriented sibling artsonia_get_feedback without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The 'mark-ALL action — Artsonia has no per-item control' clause tells the agent the condition under which this tool applies and warns that granularity is unavailable, which is genuinely useful routing guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it is clear context rather than full 5-level guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools