Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zola-mcp

zola-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mark_inquiry_read

Destructive

Flag a vendor inquiry conversation as read using its UUID from list_inquiries; this action cannot be undone.

Instructions

Mark a vendor inquiry conversation as read. There is no tool to mark it unread again.

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": {
      "uuid": "<uuid>"
    },
    "name": "mark_inquiry_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uuidYesInquiry UUID from list_inquiries

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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"
  2. First observedv1.4.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags this as mutating, but the description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that the state change is irreversible because no unread counterpart exists. It does not mention permissions or what the call returns, but the irreversibility disclosure is genuine added value.

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, no filler. The action is front-loaded and the irreversibility warning follows immediately after, which is the right ordering for a caution.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key irreversible side effect. It could say a bit more about permissions or failure modes, 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 coverage is 100% and the single uuid parameter is documented in-schema with its source (list_inquiries). The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Mark a vendor inquiry conversation as read'), which cleanly separates it from the read-only siblings get_inquiry_conversation and list_inquiries. An agent can identify what it operates on (a single inquiry conversation) without opening the 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 second sentence establishes a crucial usage constraint: the action is one-way, since no unread tool exists. That effectively tells the agent when to be cautious, but it never names an alternative or states positive conditions for calling it.

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