Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

notifications_mark_as_read

Destructive

Marks a specific notification as read by its ID, so you can clear unread items and keep notification status current.

Instructions

Mark notification as read POST /notifications/{id}/read

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "notifications_mark_as_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesNotification entry ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds no context about what state changes, whether the mark is reversible, or how an already-read or non-existent ID is handled. Marking as read is consistent with the mutation annotations, so there is no contradiction, but nothing beyond the structured fields is contributed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short lines with no filler and the action front-loaded. It is terse to the point of being under-specified, but nothing present is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter state-change tool with annotations and a fully described schema, the definition is minimally sufficient. It omits error behavior and any note that this affects one notification only, which would be useful for a destructive-flagged write.

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% with "Notification entry ID" documented on the id property, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description's {id} path template only confirms id is a path parameter, adding little beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Mark notification as read") and even names the endpoint POST /notifications/{id}/read, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling notifications_mark_all_as_read, which is the main gap.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this versus notifications_mark_all_as_read or the other notification tools, and no stated preconditions (e.g. whether the notification must be unread). The agent must infer selection from tool names alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools