Mark an email message as read or unread in Apple Mail. Specify the message ID, mailbox, and account to update its read status.
Mark a message as read or unread.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| read | Yes | Whether to mark the message as read (true) or unread (false) | |
| messageId | Yes | The numeric ID of the message | |
| accountName | Yes | The name of the account containing the mailbox | |
| mailboxName | Yes | The name of the mailbox containing the message |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / messageId / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991Input schema / properties / messageId / minimumAdded value: +-9007199254740991v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states the state change but omits any side effects, return behavior, permissions, or error handling. It does clarify that both read and unread states are supported.
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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and the full range of intended behavior (read or unread) 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?
This is a simple, well-parameterized tool with fully documented schemas, but the description lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps around side effects and selection among siblings.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, and all four parameters already have clear meanings. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clear verb and resource: marking a message as read or unread. It is specific enough to identify the operation, though it does not explicitly contrast with similar siblings like flag_message.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as flag_message or get_message. The context is implied only by the tool name and action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.