Skip to main content
Glama

Fixter

by dev.fixter.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Notification Destinations

get_notification_destinations
Read-onlyIdempotent

Show which notification channels a source's notifications are delivered to for the authenticated customer. Returns JSON with channelIds. A null channelIds means no destinations are configured, so delivery falls back to the default, which is the customer's email channel plus their default channel. An empty list means the source's notifications are turned off.

This is the source-wide row only. One alert rule or one API test can have a row of its own that outranks the source row at delivery time, so a source read alone does not tell you where a routed rule's or test's notifications go. Read those with alerting's get_alert_rule_destinations and the monitoring service's get_api_test_destinations.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYesThe notification source. Validated against the set of routable sources; an unknown value is rejected with the valid set named in the error.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / subject
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Optional. The id of one thing within the source to route on its own: an alert rule id for source alerting (the id field from get_alert_rules). For an API test use the monitoring service's set_api_test_destinations instead, which validates the test id; subject writes here are transitional and will become internal-only. Omit to address the whole source.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / subject / description
      Previous value: -"Optional. The id of one thing within the source to route on its own: an alert rule id for source alerting (the id field from get_alert_rules), or an API test id for source e2e-monitoring. Omit to address the whole source."New value: +"Optional. The id of one thing within the source to route on its own: an alert rule id for source alerting (the id field from get_alert_rules). For an API test use the monitoring service's set_api_test_destinations instead, which validates the test id; subject writes here are transitional and will become internal-only. Omit to address the whole source."
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / subject
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. The id of one thing within the source to route on its own: an alert rule id for source alerting (the id field from get_alert_rules), or an API test id for source e2e-monitoring. Omit to address the whole source.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  5. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious delivery semantics: null channelIds means fallback to the customer's email channel plus default channel, an empty list means notifications are off. It does not state auth or rate-limit behavior, but the fallback/disabled distinction is the crucial behavioral fact for this tool.

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?

Front-loaded: the core answer and return semantics come first, the sibling-routing caveat second. Every sentence carries information, though the final paragraph is dense enough that the description runs long for a one-parameter getter.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description takes on return-value disclosure and does it well by decoding the null vs empty-list cases, plus it scopes the read to the source row and points to the two tools needed for rule/test-level destinations. Nothing required to call or interpret it is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'source' parameter is fully documented in the schema (including validation behavior against routable sources), so the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show which notification channels a source's notifications are delivered to') and immediately scopes it as the source-wide row, explicitly distinguishing it from the per-rule and per-test destination getters. An agent can tell it apart from get_alert_rule_destinations and get_api_test_destinations without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names when this tool is insufficient ('a source read alone does not tell you where a routed rule's or test's notifications go') and routes the agent to the two exact alternatives by name. Both the when-to-use and the when-not-to-use conditions are stated with no inference required.

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

All Fixter toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources