acknowledge_alertsMark ASO rank alerts as read by ID or all at once; set clear to delete all alerts instead.
Mark rank alerts as read (given ids, or all when ids is omitted). With clear:true, delete all alerts instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | No | Alerts to mark read (default: all). | |
| clear | No | Delete all alerts (ignores ids). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds useful scope: clear:true deletes all alerts and ignores ids. It does not add permissions or reversibility details, but it meaningfully clarifies the destructive path beyond the annotation flag.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary operation and immediately followed by the destructive alternative. There is no filler or repetition.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers both invocation modes and the destructive exception. No output schema exists, but no return-value contract is needed to invoke it correctly.
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 100%, and the schema already documents that ids defaults to all and clear ignores ids. The description restates that behavior clearly but adds no syntax or format details beyond the structured schema.
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 names a specific verb and resource: mark rank alerts as read, then clearly distinguishes the alternate clear:true deletion mode. An agent can understand both operations and their difference without inspecting the schema.
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?
It explains the key usage branches: supply ids to target specific alerts, omit ids to mark all read, or set clear:true to delete all instead. It does not explicitly name list_rank_alerts as a read-only alternative, but the mutation context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.