mark_read_toolMark RSS or Atom feed entries as read, either individually, by feed, or all at once, to track unread items in a feed reader.
Mark entries as read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feed_id | No | Mark all entries in a feed as read | |
| entry_id | No | Mark a single entry as read | |
| all_entries | No | Mark ALL entries as read (use with caution) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Input schema / properties / entry_id / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / feed_id / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not that this is a state mutation, not whether it is reversible, not whether it affects unread counters, and not that omitting all three optional parameters is a no-op. The only hint of caution ("use with caution") lives in the schema, not the description.
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?
One short sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, which is good. But the terseness crosses into under-specification rather than efficient conciseness for a mutation tool with three mutually exclusive scope options.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a no-annotation mutation tool with three optional, scope-defining parameters the description should at minimum say that exactly one scope should be supplied and that state is changed. None of that is present.
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 each of the three parameters is already documented in the schema (feed_id = all entries in a feed, entry_id = a single entry, all_entries = everything). The description adds no meaning 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a clear verb+resource ("Mark entries as read") that an agent can act on immediately. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling mark_unread_tool or clarify whether the scope is a single entry, a feed, or everything — that distinction is only visible in the schema.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obviously related alternative mark_unread_tool. The agent gets no signal about when this tool is the right choice versus read_entry_tool or list_entries_tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.