Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

vibo-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

vibo_mark_notifications_read

DestructiveIdempotent

Mark specific notifications as read or clear all notifications, with user confirmation before changes.

Instructions

Mark notifications as read — pass specific notificationIds, or readAll:true to clear everything. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
readAllNoMark every notification as read.
confirmTokenNoONLY 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.
notificationIdsNoSpecific notification ids to mark read.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.3.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Added 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. Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. Addedv1.5.3
  4. Removedv1.5.1
  5. First observedv1.3.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantive behavior the annotations cannot convey: a user confirmation gate, a client-dependent prompt, and a two-step preview/confirmToken fallback keyed to MCP_CONFIRM_MODE. This is exactly the kind of beyond-annotation context an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Front-loads the core action in one sentence and defers the confirmation mechanics to a second. Dense but every clause is functional; the parenthetical MCP_CONFIRM_MODE reference is terse but justified.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety gate, the fallback flow, and the token lifecycle. It does not state what happens to already-read notifications or what the success response contains, a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100% and the confirmToken description in the schema is unusually thorough, so the schema carries most of the burden. The description's added value is limited to restating the readAll-vs-ids tradeoff, which earns the baseline 3 rather than more.

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 notifications as read') and immediately distinguishes its two operating modes (specific notificationIds vs. readAll:true). It is clearly separable from the sibling vibo_list_notifications and vibo_get_notifications_count, which read rather than mutate.

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?

Gives clear routing between the two modes and explains the confirmation prerequisite, including which call must carry confirmToken and which must not. It stops short of naming the sibling tools an agent might confuse this with, so it is context-rich but not fully disambiguating.

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