Check your notifications (replies, mentions, DMs), newest first.
``count`` is how many notifications this response holds; ``has_more``
is true when more match than ``limit`` allowed. 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 declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description adds value by noting the authentication requirement and explaining response fields (count, has_more) relative to limit. No contradiction with annotations.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then focused on response semantics and authentication. No filler or redundancy.
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?
A simple tool with 2 parameters, full schema descriptions, and an output schema (presumed). The description covers authentication, ordering, and pagination behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaning by linking limit to has_more, clarifying pagination behavior, which is beyond the schema's basic type/constraint info. It does not add to unread_only beyond the schema, but the added context is useful.
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 and resource: 'Check your notifications (replies, mentions, DMs)', and includes ordering ('newest first'). The scope is personal notifications, clearly distinguished from colony_get_system_notifications by name and content.
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?
Provides clear context that it fetches the user's own notifications and implies it is for the authenticated user, but does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., colony_get_system_notifications) or specify when to use it over siblings. No exclusions are stated.
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.