Mark a Matrix room as read up to and including a specified event using room and event IDs, clearing its unread status.
Mark a room as read up to (and including) the given event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tenant | No | ||
| room_id | Yes | ||
| event_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the mutation and the inclusive range ('up to and including'), but omits side effects, authentication requirements, idempotency, and whether this triggers notifications—significant gaps for a state-changing operation.
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 front-loaded sentence that states the action and its scope with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the inclusive boundary is conveyed efficiently.
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?
Despite an output schema that relieves return-value explanation, the description is incomplete for a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions. It omits the tenant parameter, usage context, and behavioral details, leaving the agent with gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps 'room' to room_id and 'given event' to event_id, but never mentions the 'tenant' parameter and adds no format or syntactic detail beyond the schema's type information.
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 ('Mark...as read') and resources ('room', 'event'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not mention sibling tools or explicitly distinguish itself from the other room- and message-related tools, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites such as required permissions, and no exclusions. It is not misleading, but the agent receives no routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.