mark_unread_toolMark a specific RSS/Atom feed entry as unread by its entry ID so you can revisit it later.
Mark an entry as unread.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry_id | Yes | Entry ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Input schema / properties / entry_id / minimumAdded value: +1v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is idempotent, whether it affects unread counters or feed state downstream, or whether re-marking an already-unread entry errors — all relevant for a mutation tool.
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 short sentence with zero filler, and the operation is front-loaded. It is under-specified rather than wasteful; the brevity is appropriate but extremely sparse.
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, and the single parameter is fully described in the schema. What is missing is any behavioral context for a state-mutating tool with no annotations — enough to be minimally viable, not complete.
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% for the single entry_id parameter, so the schema already documents it (type, minimum). The description adds no format, range, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, making 3 the correct baseline.
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') and resource ('an entry') with the target state ('unread'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling mark_read_tool. However, it never names or contrasts with that inverse sibling, so an agent gets no explicit routing help beyond the tool name itself.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus mark_read_tool or read_entry_tool, and no mention of preconditions such as the entry needing to exist. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.