Acknowledge an inbox cursor to mark messages as processed. This idempotent operation confirms receipt of messages up to the cursor, enabling reliable progress tracking.
确认收件箱游标（幂等）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions idempotency, which is helpful, but does not disclose side effects, such as whether it advances the cursor permanently, whether it requires prior registration or authentication, or what happens if the cursor is invalid. For an ack operation, these are critical.
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?
The description is a single short sentence (in Chinese) that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately sized for its simplicity, though it misses explanatory details.
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?
Given the tool has one parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and a terse description, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about required context (e.g., must be registered first, must have a valid inbox), error handling, and return behavior. For a tool that provides an ack mechanism, more context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, the description barely explains the 'cursor' parameter. It says it confirms a cursor, but gives no information about what constitutes a valid cursor, its format, or constraints. This is a significant gap given the single parameter.
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 states a specific action (确认...游标, confirming the inbox cursor) and indicates idempotency, which is clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like zhiqi_inbox, though the context of cursor confirmation is distinct.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like acknowledging processed messages after fetching via zhiqi_inbox, nor any exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.