planvortex-mcp

Official

by taliasoftworks

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Hybrid

Mark a comment as read

mark_comment_read

Idempotent

Mark a PlanVortex inbox comment as read or unread without changing its public status on the social network or affecting the original post.

Instructions

Mark a comment as read (or unread) in the PlanVortex inbox. This is the only state on a comment that belongs to PlanVortex and not to the social network: it changes nothing publicly.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`read`	No
`id_comment`	Yes
`id_organization`	No	The PlanVortex organization id. Optional.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`read`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.0Sep 26, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
First observedv0.1.0Aug 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false, and readOnly=false; the description adds genuinely non-obvious context, namely that this mutates only PlanVortex-local state and has no public effect on the social network. It does not mention auth or rate-limit behavior, but it meaningfully extends the annotation profile.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. The second sentence is slightly wordy but delivers real information about the state's locality, so nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, local-only scope, and the read/unread semantics. The main gap is the undocumented id_comment parameter, which no other field compensates for.

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 only 33%: id_comment and read have no schema descriptions. The phrase '(or unread)' does explain the purpose of the boolean read flag beyond the bare default:true, but id_comment's format and the optional id_organization are left undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mark a comment as read') and clarifies the toggle scope ('or unread') plus the PlanVortex-inbox domain. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby sibling hide_comment, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'in the PlanVortex inbox' and 'changes nothing publicly' imply when this is appropriate (internal read-state management, not public moderation), but no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not condition is given.

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