Marks a Backlog notification as read using its notification ID, so unread alerts can be cleared and notification lists stay current.
Mark a notification as read
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Notification ID to mark as read |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1v0.13.1v0.11.0Input schema / properties / organizationAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional organization name. Use list_organizations to inspect available organizations.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing on top: it does not say whether the unread count is decremented, whether marking an already-read notification errors or no-ops, or how failures surface — all useful context for a state-mutating call.
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?
It is a single short sentence with zero waste, but its brevity comes from omission rather than discipline. There is nothing front-loaded because there is nothing beyond the name.
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?
The tool is simple (one required param, no output schema), so a short description is defensible, but the definition still omits the one thing an agent would want here — the relationship to get_notifications / count_notifications and reset_unread_notification_count, and whether the action affects unread counts. Given the crowded sibling namespace, that gap is material.
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?
There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Notification ID to mark as read'), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no format, source, or lookup hints, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not additive.
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 is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name: 'Mark a notification as read' vs. mark_notification_as_read. It does identify the verb and resource, but adds no distinguishing detail beyond what the identifier already conveys, so it sits at the tautology line rather than a clear statement of purpose.
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 when-to-use guidance is given. The sibling list contains mark_watching_as_read and reset_unread_notification_count, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool, and the description does nothing to route between them or state prerequisites such as owning the notification.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.