Dutify

pm_get_notification_settings

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the current user's aggregated notification settings: {pm, codexum, roadmarq}. pm holds the Project Management settings; codexum (wiki) and roadmarq (feedback) each hold appChannel, emailChannel and browserChannel, each {settings: {key: true|false}}. Use this to find out which notification is on before asking the user to flip one; pm_update_notification_channel changes the codexum and roadmarq ones. API-key scope: users:read.

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": "pm_get_notification_settings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`account`	No	Multi-account auth only: name of the account from X-Dutify-Accounts to use for this call. Ignored in single-account mode (X-API-Key header). When multiple accounts are configured and this is omitted, the call fails with ACCOUNT_REQUIRED listing the available names. list_accounts never requires a selection.
`workspace`	No	Workspace identifier or exact name for this call. Overrides the configured workspace. For personal keys, discover candidates with list_workspaces and select explicitly. Does not change other calls or expand a workspace key's access.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description spends its words on higher-value facts: the response's nested shape, the implicit scoping to the current user (no targeting of others), and the required `users:read` API-key scope. Only the auth-scope prerequisite for mutations is mentioned indirectly; nothing contradicts annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by return shape and then routing/auth notes — a logical order with little waste. The nested-brace notation (`{settings: {key: true|false}}`) is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic, but compensates for the absence of an output schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, documenting the return structure is essential and this description does it; auth scope and the mutation counterpart are also covered. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters (account, workspace) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the implicit 'current user' scoping but says nothing about account or workspace selection behavior.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (the current user's aggregated notification settings) and immediately names the three sub-buckets pm, codexum and roadmarq with their domains. An agent can tell this apart from pm_update_notification_channel and from notification-list tools like pm_list_notifications without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit use case ('find out which notification is on before asking the user to flip one') and names the alternative that performs the mutation, pm_update_notification_channel, including its scope limitation (codexum and roadmarq only). It stops short of an explicit 'do not use this for X' exclusion, but the routing is clear.

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

All Dutify tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?