Marks a conversation as read for the current viewer. Provide the conversation ID to update the read status.
Mark a conversation as read for the current viewer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | Send16 API key (overrides SEND16_API_KEY env var) | |
| convoId | Yes | Conversation ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must disclose side effects, but it fails to mention impacts on other viewers, idempotency, or notification triggers. The action of marking as read is under-explained.
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?
Single sentence with no fluff, but overly brief and missing essential usage details. Efficient but not sufficiently informative.
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?
For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description should explain return value, error conditions, or side effects. None are provided, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke.
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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema, resulting in baseline score.
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 uses a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('a conversation as read'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_convo' or 'get_convo'.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., viewer being participant), and no exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.