stormgtm-mcp

Mark threads read

mark_read

Mark email threads as read or unread by passing thread IDs; set read to false to mark threads unread.

Instructions

Mark threads read, or unread with read set to false.

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": {
      "threadIds": "<threadIds>"
    },
    "name": "mark_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`read`	No	true (default) marks read, false marks unread
`threadIds`	Yes	Thread ids from list_threads

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the read/unread toggle (already stated in the schema) but says nothing about permissions, whether already-read threads error, batch size limits, or side effects on unread counts.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, with zero filler. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 simple two-parameter state-change tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. Only the absence of permission/side-effect context keeps it from a 5.

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%, so both parameters (read, threadIds) are already fully documented in the schema, including the maxItems=200 and the source of ids. The description only restates the read toggle, adding nothing beyond the schema baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mark threads read') and even covers the inverse mode, so the agent knows exactly what state change this tool performs. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself with archive_threads/mark_spam, 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by explaining the read/unread toggle, but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison against neighbors like read_thread or archive_threads. Usage must be inferred from the name and mode parameter.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.