Get your notifications (community activity, workspace, run results, billing and system notices), along with the unread count. Returns cursor-paginated results — use next_cursor from the response for subsequent pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | Cursor for pagination. Omit for the first page, use next_cursor from the previous response for subsequent pages. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that results are cursor-paginated and that the response includes an unread count and a next_cursor, which annotations cannot express.
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?
Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what is returned, the second covers pagination mechanics. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information comes first.
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?
With no output schema, the description helpfully names the unread count and the next_cursor field so the agent knows what comes back and how to page. It stops short of describing ordering, filters, or result limits, but is sufficient to call the tool correctly.
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 100% and the single cursor parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description's pagination sentence largely restates it. Baseline 3 is appropriate — it corroborates but does not extend the schema's parameter documentation.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (your notifications), and enumerates the categories covered (community activity, workspace, run results, billing, system notices) plus the unread count. This clearly separates it from mark_notifications_read, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and by the pagination note, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus mark_notifications_read or how it relates to other listing tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving the agent to infer the read-vs-mutate split.
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.
