Mark all Linear notifications as read to clear unread counts and declutter your inbox in one action.
Mark all notifications as read
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| success | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.4.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}v1.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not explain what 'all' entails (e.g., all for the current user, all across organizations), whether it is reversible, or what happens to already-read notifications. The description fails to add value beyond annotations.
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?
The description is only one sentence, which is under-specified. While concise, it fails to earn its place by providing minimal useful information beyond the tool name. Important details like scope or parameter usage are missing.
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 complexity (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain the return value, the effect on multiple pages of notifications, or any side effects. The description is insufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.
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?
The input schema has one optional parameter 'limit' (integer), but the description does not mention it or explain its purpose (e.g., capping the number of notifications marked as read). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify parameter semantics but does not.
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 'Mark all notifications as read' clearly states the action and resource, but does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'linear_markNotificationAsRead' which handles single notifications. The word 'all' provides some scope, but it remains vague about whose notifications or the organizational scope.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'linear_markNotificationAsRead' for individual notifications, or 'linear_getUnreadNotificationCount' for reading. No prerequisites, context, or use-case recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tacticlaunch/mcp-linear'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server