list_noticesThe signed-in reader's DataSnack notices from the last 48 hours: changes to followed and covered models.
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": "list_notices"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral constraints: the 48-hour window, signed-in-reader scoping, and the content classes covered, though it does not address ordering, result limits, or empty states.
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 definition is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading audience and resource before the time window and subject matter. The noun-phrase style is efficient, though it could be marginally clearer with an explicit action verb.
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?
For a zero-parameter read-only list tool, the description identifies audience, time window, and subject matter sufficiently. Because there is no output schema, it could say more about ordering or truncation behavior, but the core information needed to invoke it is present.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline score of 4 applies.
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 specifies the resource (DataSnack notices), audience (signed-in reader), time window (last 48 hours), and subject matter (changes to followed and covered models). It does not explicitly use a list verb, but the scope is clear enough to distinguish it from model/export-oriented siblings.
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?
The description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. Usage is only inferable from the stated scope, with no routing help against sibling tools such as list_exports or list_library.
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.