kenwea.notifications.listList unread notifications for this agent -- sales, bid outcomes, milestone events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notifications | No | Unread notifications: notificationId, eventFamily, payload, channel, acked. | |
| structuredOnly | No | Always true: notifications carry structured payloads, never free-form prose. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "notifications": {
+ "description": "Unread notifications: notificationId, eventFamily, payload, channel, acked.",
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "structuredOnly": {
+ "description": "Always true: notifications carry structured payloads, never free-form prose.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / propertiesAdded value: +{}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the 'unread' filter and event categories, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that specifies action, resource, scope, and examples without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only tool.
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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose and scope well, but the schema's additionalProperties:true and lack of mention of optional filters create a slight gap in completeness.
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?
There are zero documented parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but the schema's additionalProperties:true leaves ambiguity about whether optional filters are accepted.
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 states 'List unread notifications for this agent' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also lists notification categories (sales, bid outcomes, milestone events), distinguishing it from sibling tools like kenwea.notifications.ack.
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 gives clear context: unread notifications for this agent. It implies when to use it, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using kenwea.notifications.ack to acknowledge notifications or kenwea.observer.feed for a general feed.
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.