FeedKeeper RSS/Atom reader and remote MCP Server

Mark all articles as read

mark_all_read

Marks all unread articles as read in a single operation, optionally scoped to a feed or folder, and returns the count of newly read items.

Instructions

Marks all unread articles as read in a single operation. Can be scoped to a single feed or an entire folder. Idempotent. Returns { marked: number } with the count of newly read items.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "mark_all_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`feedId`	No	Optional feed ID to limit the mark-all-read operation to one feed
`folderId`	No	Optional folder ID to limit the mark-all-read operation to one folder

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.36.4Nov 9, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / feedId / description

Added value: +"Optional feed ID to limit the mark-all-read operation to one feed"

addedInput schema / properties / folderId / description

Added value: +"Optional folder ID to limit the mark-all-read operation to one folder"

First observedv0.36.3Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose idempotency and the exact return shape { marked: number }, which is genuinely useful. However, it never warns that omitting both optional parameters marks every unread article account-wide (a large blast radius for an irreversible write), and no undo or permission context is given.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded before the scoping note and return value. Every sentence contributes information an agent needs.

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 parameterless-invokable bulk mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, scope, idempotency, and return value. The missing piece is the dangerous default: calling with no arguments reads everything, and that consequence is not called out.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both optional integer parameters are already documented in the schema, setting a baseline of 3. The description's mention of feed- and folder-level scoping adds a little framing but no new semantics such as mutual exclusivity or default behavior when both are omitted.

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 pairs a specific verb ('marks ... as read') with an explicit scope ('all unread articles') and clarifies it is a single bulk operation that can be limited to one feed or one folder. That framing makes it distinguishable from the single-item mark_read sibling without needing to open the schema.

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?

It states the two scoping options (feed vs. folder), which implies when to pass each parameter, but it offers no guidance on precedence when both feedId and folderId are supplied, and no explicit contrast with mark_read for single-item use. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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