Mark a specific notification as read by providing its ID, clearing it from unread alerts.
Mark a single notification as read.
Args: notification_id: Notification ID e.g. 'hist_123' or 'comm_456'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notification_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the core mutation but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, reversibility, or authentication requirements. This is a meaningful gap for a write operation.
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 very short and front-loaded with the action, followed by a single parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague filler.
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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention idempotency or behavior for already-read notifications, but the essential information needed to invoke the tool correctly is present.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section provides a concrete example and format hints ('hist_123' or 'comm_456'), which give real meaning beyond the bare schema field name.
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 single notification as read'), clearly distinguishing this tool from its sibling wetrack_mark_all_notifications_read. The word 'single' provides scope and prevents confusion.
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 implies usage for single notifications but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over mark_all_notifications_read or mention any prerequisites. The guidance is adequate for a simple action but relies on inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.