get_notificationsGet recent triggered alert notifications.
Args:
offset: Skip this many notifications (default 0)
limit: Page size (default 50, max 100). Upstream returns at most 50 unread.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "default": 50,
+ "title": "Limit",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / offsetAdded value: +{
+ "default": 0,
+ "title": "Offset",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: notifications are unread-only and the upstream caps results at 50, which materially affects how an agent should page.
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?
Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block; every line carries information. Slightly verbose by restating schema defaults, though that is defensible given 0% schema coverage.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. With pagination documented, the unread cap disclosed, and the safety profile in annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: offset is defined as a skip count, limit as page size with default 50 and max 100. The only omission is behavior when offset exceeds the 50-unread upstream cap.
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 and resource with a meaningful qualifier: "recent triggered alert notifications." The word "triggered" implicitly separates it from list_alerts (alert definitions), but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no statement about when to use this tool versus list_alerts or any other sibling, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only contextual cue is the unread cap, which is behavioral rather than usage guidance.
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.