Read only your own recent notification status. sent means accepted by the email provider, delivered means accepted by the recipient mail server; neither means read or approved. uncertain requires Helvabase operational review and must not be retried with a new key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that it is safe to call. It adds useful context about status semantics (sent vs delivered) and the operational review requirement for 'uncertain'. However, it doesn't describe what happens when the tool is called (e.g., return format, pagination), but given annotations cover safety, a 3 is fair.
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 sentences long and front-loads the core purpose. The status definitions are tightly packed with the key warning about 'uncertain'. No wasted words, though the second sentence could be considered slightly dense.
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?
The tool is simple (1 parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the essential status semantics and a critical caveat. Missing details like return format or how to interpret 'read or approved' are minor, but given that the description could be slightly richer, a 3 is appropriate.
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 carries the burden for the single parameter 'limit'. However, the description does not mention 'limit' at all, so the agent must infer its meaning from the schema. Since the schema has a default and min/max, the description adds no value beyond existing schema details, but the schema is self-explanatory for limit. A 3 is appropriate because the description doesn't compensate but the schema is sufficient.
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 clearly identifies the tool as reading notification status, specifying the resource ('notification history') and scope ('your own'). It distinguishes it from sibling tools like notification_settings by focusing on status rather than preferences. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools that might be confused, so a 4 is appropriate.
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?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool (to check sent/delivered status) and includes an exclusion for the 'uncertain' status, explicitly stating not to retry with a new key. While it doesn't mention alternatives like notification_settings as a contrast, the guidance for the 'uncertain' case is valuable.
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.
