get_notification_preferencesRead notification preferences per category. scope 'user' (default) returns your own settings, where isUserOverride tells you whether a category follows the organization default or your own choice; scope 'org' returns the organization defaults. Requires organization context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | Whose settings to read: 'user' (default) or 'org' | user |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While the readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a read operation, the description reinforces this by starting with 'Read' and explains the behavior involving 'isUserOverride' and scope, adding value beyond the annotation.
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 two sentences, well-structured, and directly addresses the tool's purpose and key details without unnecessary verbosity. It is concise and easy to parse.
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 description includes the required organization context, scope behavior, and explanation of a response field. It does not mention error handling or output schema, but these are not essential for a simple get operation, so it is sufficiently complete.
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?
The parameter 'scope' is fully described in the schema, and the description further enriches its meaning by explaining what each scope returns (e.g., 'user' returns own settings with isUserOverride), providing complete semantic detail.
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 'Read notification preferences per category' with a specific verb and resource, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like 'update_notification_preferences' and 'list_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?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use 'scope' values 'user' vs 'org' and notes the requirement for organization context, giving clear conditions for use. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but the context is sufficient.
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.
The tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Some pairs like get_header_policies vs get_resolved_headers or get_environment_verification vs get_monitoring_sync_status could be slightly confusing, but the descriptions clarify scope and purpose.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_, manage_, etc.). Even the few bare verbs like 'search' and 'set_context' are consistent with the naming scheme.
With 165 tools, the server is extremely heavy. This far exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25+, making it difficult for an agent to navigate and select the right tool efficiently.
The tool surface covers a very broad API lifecycle domain: specs, environments, test cases, monitors, mock servers, security, governance, documentation, and team management. Read and write operations are present across most areas, with no obvious missing core functionality.