Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HAOps MCP Server

HAOps MCP Server

by tbranzov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

haops_mark_dm_read

Mark all direct messages from a specific user as read in a project. Provide project slug and user ID to clear unread DMs.

Instructions

Mark all direct messages from a specific user as read.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projectSlug": "<projectSlug>",
      "userId": "<userId>"
    },
    "name": "haops_mark_dm_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userIdYesUUID of the user whose messages to mark as read
verboseNoIf true, return the full API response instead of the compact summary (default: false)
projectSlugYesThe project slug (URL identifier)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.8.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the core behavior. It does not disclose required permissions, side effects, or scope (e.g., whether it marks messages across all channels or just a single conversation). The description is under-informative for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no redundancy. It is efficient and front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the low complexity, the description is adequate but lacks details like idempotency or confirmation of action. With no output schema, some return behavior context would be helpful.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain how the parameters relate or provide context for the verbose option.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('mark') and the resource ('all direct messages from a specific user as read'). It is specific and distinguishes well from sibling tools like haops_mark_notification_read or haops_send_dm.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context. Usage is only implied by the action itself.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools