Set a thread's READ-STATE for inbox triage. Inputs: threadId, status = 'read' | 'unread' | 'archived' (archived hides it from the default inbox; refetch with inbox archived='include'/'only'). Returns { marked: true }. 404 if unknown. This is the read/archive flag ONLY — use label_thread for a triage label chip, reply to respond.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| threadId | Yes | The thread id, e.g. from inbox() or campaign events. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false, which aligns with updating read state. Description discloses 404 for unknown thread, but could explicitly mention idempotency or safe behavior.
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?
Concise, well-structured description with clear purpose, inputs, outputs, error case, and sibling differentiation. No unnecessary words.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and annotations present, the description covers all necessary context: inputs, outputs, error handling, and when to use alternatives.
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 coverage is 50% (only threadId has description). Description provides meaning for status enum values and clarifies threadId source (from inbox or campaign events), compensating for schema gaps.
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 clearly states the tool sets a thread's READ-STATE for inbox triage, specifies valid status values, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like label_thread and reply.
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?
Explicit usage guidance: explains when to use this tool (for read/archive flag) and when to use alternatives (label_thread for labels, reply to respond). Also explains how to refetch archived threads.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but pause/pause_all and metrics/campaign_results/list_campaigns have overlapping scopes. Descriptions clarify the differences, so ambiguity is low.
Uses snake_case with a mix of verb_noun (list_campaigns) and noun_verb (infrastructure_status), but patterns are predictable. Minor inconsistency between setup_infrastructure and infrastructure_status.
25 tools is at the upper bound for a focused server, but the domain (cold email automation) justifies the number. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the workflow.
Covers account management, campaigns, leads, threads, infrastructure, webhooks, and dashboards. Missing resume for paused campaigns and delete for campaigns, but core operations are present.