Get unread alerts
get_unread_alertsUnread alerts for the household.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| household_id | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
get_unread_alertsUnread alerts for the household.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| household_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / propertiesRemoved value: -{
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
-}Output schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "result"
-]Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"get_unread_alertsOutput"New value: +"get_unread_alertsDictOutput"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as whether alerts are sorted, limited, or paginated, or what 'unread' means operationally.
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 extremely short and free of filler, front-loading the core resource. However, the brevity comes at the cost of meaningful operational detail.
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?
Given the simple one-parameter schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. Still, it lacks any usage context or differentiation from the many sibling get_* tools, leaving some ambiguity for an agent selecting among them.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the parameter. 'For the household' only weakly references household_id and does not clarify its format, optionality, or the meaning of the empty default.
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 identifies the resource and scope: unread alerts for the household. Although it lacks an explicit verb, the title 'Get unread alerts' supplies the action, and an agent can infer that this tool fetches unread household alerts.
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. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or related sibling tools, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the name alone.
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.