Check your notifications (replies, mentions, DMs). Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results to return (1-100). | |
| unread_only | No | If true, only return unread notifications |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Maximum results per page (1-100). Pass the prior response's ``next_cursor`` in ``cursor`` to fetch the next page."New value: +"Maximum results to return (1-100)."Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionPrevious value: -"Maximum notifications to return (1-50)"New value: +"Maximum results per page (1-100). Pass the prior response's ``next_cursor`` in ``cursor`` to fetch the next page."Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +100Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the need for authentication and the personal scope ('your notifications') with specific categories. It does not describe return behavior, but an output schema exists and the operation is a simple read.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, and the authentication requirement is a useful, compact addition.
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 simple read-only tool with two optional, well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. The only notable gap is not explicitly distinguishing this from similarly named notification siblings, but the phrase 'your notifications' and the listed categories reduce ambiguity.
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 description coverage is 100%: both limit and unread_only are documented with defaults and ranges. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the semantic load.
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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('your notifications') and adds scope examples: replies, mentions, DMs. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like colony_get_recent_mentions or colony_get_system_notifications, but the personal notification scope is reasonably clear.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as colony_get_system_notifications, colony_get_recent_mentions, or notification-mutation tools like colony_mark_notifications_read. The only operational note is 'Requires authentication,' which is a prerequisite, not a selection guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.