archive_notificationArchive a single notification by ID. It leaves the inbox but is not erased.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Notification ID (from list_notifications) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Confirmation that the notification left the inbox. | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Confirmation that the notification left the inbox."
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "description": "True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds useful nuance by stating the notification is not erased and simply leaves the inbox. This clarifies that archiving is a reversible, non-destructive action despite the destructive hint.
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 short sentences deliver the core action and the key behavioral nuance. No filler or redundant detail, and the main action is front-loaded.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering the destructive behavior, the description is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.
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% and the only parameter id is already described as 'Notification ID (from list_notifications)'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description states an explicit verb and resource ('Archive a single notification by ID') and clarifies non-permanence ('leaves the inbox but is not erased'). It clearly distinguishes from the plural sibling archive_notifications.
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?
Usage is implied through 'single notification by ID' and the distinction of being archived rather than erased. However, it does not explicitly name the plural alternative archive_notifications or state when to prefer one over the other.
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.