Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Baasix MCP Server

Baasix MCP Server

by tspvivek
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

baasix_mark_notification_seen

Mark a notification as seen using its ID to update its status and remove it from unread counts.

Instructions

Mark a notification as seen

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "baasix_mark_notification_seen"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesNotification ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.7

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It communicates that a state mutation occurs, but it does not disclose whether marking is idempotent, affects unread counts, requires specific permissions, or returns a result.

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?

The description is a single efficient, verb-first sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though it provides no additional structural framing or context.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description plus full schema coverage is minimally viable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around usage context, side effects, and expected result that an agent would benefit from knowing.

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 the schema already documents the only parameter 'id' as a Notification ID. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: it marks a notification as seen. It is understandable and distinguishable from siblings like list_notifications and send_notification, though it mostly rephrases the tool name without adding extra scope or detail.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what precedes it, or how it relates to alternatives such as list_notifications or send_notification. The use case is only implied by the name and description, not explicitly laid out.

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