Fixter

Set Notification Destinations

set_notification_destinations

DestructiveIdempotent

Choose which notification channels a source's notifications are delivered to for the authenticated customer. ADMIN only. Pass the notification-channel ids (UUIDs from list_alert_channels). Omit channelIds to clear the destinations, which returns the source to the default: the customer's email channel plus their default channel. Pass an empty list to turn the source's notifications off.

This sets the source-wide row only. A row for one alert rule or one API test outranks the source row at delivery time, so turning a source off does not stop deliveries that such a row still routes. Route one alert rule with alerting's set_alert_rule_destinations and one API test with the monitoring service's set_api_test_destinations. Returns the saved destinations as JSON.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "set_notification_destinations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	Yes	The notification source. Validated against the set of routable sources; an unknown value is rejected with the valid set named in the error.
`channelIds`	No	Notification channel ids, or omit to clear, or [] to turn off

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 16, 2026
- addedInput schema / $schema
```
Added value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
```
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

Changed1 schema field changedOct 14, 2026

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"
-}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 13, 2026

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."

Changed1 schema field changedAug 25, 2026

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"
+}

AddedAug 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses ADMIN-only access, the destructive effects of omitting channelIds or passing an empty list, the default fallback behavior, and the fact that per-rule or per-API-test destination rows can outrank the source setting. These are important behavioral details not covered by structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core action and ADMIN restriction, then explains parameter behavior, precedence, alternatives, and return format in well-ordered sentences. Every sentence adds useful operational context without padding.

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?

For a destructive, admin-only mutation with no output schema, the description covers access requirements, parameter semantics, default behavior, precedence rules, alternative tools, and return format. An agent has enough information to call it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description still adds meaning: channelIds are UUIDs from list_alert_channels, omitting them clears the destinations back to a specific default, and passing an empty list turns notifications off. It does not add much about the source parameter beyond what the schema already documents.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: choosing notification channels for a source's notifications for the authenticated customer. It also distinguishes the source-wide row from per-alert-rule and per-API-test rows, making the tool's scope clear against siblings.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool, including ADMIN-only access, how to clear destinations by omitting channelIds, and how to disable notifications by passing an empty list. It also names the alternative tools for routing a single alert rule or a single API test.

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

All Fixter tools Inspect

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

Need Help?