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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by defining what each status value means and explicitly warning that 'uncertain' requires operational review and must not be retried with a new key — actionable behavior an agent cannot infer from 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?
Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the status definitions. Two sentences carry real information with little waste, though the semicolon chain of status definitions is 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?
With no output schema, the description usefully explains the status vocabulary, which is the main semantic payload. However it says nothing about the shape of the returned history or the limit parameter, leaving gaps for a read tool with undocumented output.
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?
The single parameter (limit, default 25, max 50) has 0% schema description coverage and is completely unmentioned in the description. No pagination or result-size context is added, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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: reads 'your own recent notification status'. The 'your own' scoping distinguishes it from the sibling settings tools (helvabase_notification_settings, set_notification_preferences, set_notification_rules), though it does not name an alternative directly. Clear enough to select without opening the schema.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus the notification settings/rules siblings. The only guidance is a value-level constraint ('uncertain ... must not be retried with a new key'), which is a behavioral rule, not tool-selection 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.
