Recall Kitchen

list_recall_notifications

Read-onlyIdempotent

List recall notifications for this API key. unread defaults to true (unread only); pass false for all. Empty for new accounts until a new matching recall is published; not a backfill of check_tracked_products. message is a short plain-text summary. Requires an API key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	number of notifications to return
`offset`	No	number of notifications to skip
`unread`	No	if true, only unread notifications; if false, include read. Default: true (unread only)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`offset`	Yes
`message`	No
`nextOffset`	No
`notifications`	Yes

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: API key requirement, default unread-only behavior, empty results for new accounts, and the meaning of the message field. 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds relevant information about behavior, output, or authentication. The phrasing is slightly choppy with several short standalone sentences, but there is no unnecessary verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers scope, authentication, default behavior, empty-result semantics, and a key output field. With an output schema present and parameters fully documented in the schema, this is sufficient for correct invocation, though it could briefly mention pagination behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit, offset, and unread. The description restates the unread default but adds little new parameter meaning; it only clarifies the output message field rather than the input parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action and resource: 'List recall notifications for this API key.' It differentiates from siblings by explicitly noting it is 'not a backfill of check_tracked_products,' so an agent can distinguish it from related lookup tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when the tool is relevant, including the default unread filter and the empty-result behavior for new accounts. It explicitly warns against using it as a backfill of check_tracked_products, providing a useful exclusion, though it does not fully describe when to prefer the sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Recall Kitchen tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct roles, and the descriptions explicitly separate product lookup from recall search. However, the multiple recall search entry points (by query, UPC, image, and identifier) overlap enough that an agent could pick the wrong one without carefully reading the details.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names consistently follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern such as add_, list_, remove_, search_, get_, create_, revoke_, and mark_. The single-word signup is the only minor deviation, but it does not undermine the overall naming system.

Tool Count3/5

At 19 tools, the set is in the borderline-heavy range. The count is justified by the multiple subdomains like API key management, inventory, watch patterns, notifications, and recall searching, but it still feels slightly above the ideal well-scoped tool surface.

Completeness4/5

Core recall search, product lookup, inventory tracking, watch pattern management, notifications, and API key lifecycle are all covered well. Minor gaps exist such as no way to update a watch pattern or view account usage limits, but agents can generally work around them.

Resources

Need Help?