Mark a specific document as read by UUID, or mark all unread documents as read for a company.
Mark one SPV document as read (or all unread documents of the company when uuid is omitted).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | No | SPV document UUID; omit to mark everything read | |
| companyId | No | Company UUID (overrides STORNO_COMPANY_ID env var) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.28Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool changes read status and that omitting uuid marks all unread documents. It does not mention idempotency, reversibility, or effects on statistics, but the primary side effect is clear.
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 that conveys the essential information without unnecessary detail or repetition. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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 this simple action, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the operation and the optional parameter behavior. No output schema exists, so no return value description is needed.
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?
Both parameters (uuid and companyId) have descriptive text in the schema, providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline of 3.
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 clearly states the action ('mark as read') and the object ('SPV document'), and distinguishes between marking a single document versus all unread documents for the company. It is unambiguous and differentiates from sibling tools like spv_documents_list and spv_documents_get.
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 explains the two usage modes (with or without uuid) and implies when to use each. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, though the sibling context makes this fairly clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.