Set the account owner's notification preferences: usage alerts at 80% and 100% of the monthly quota, incident notices, and the console timezone (an ActiveSupport/IANA zone name).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| time_zone | No | Timezone name, e.g. 'Europe/Vienna' or 'UTC' | |
| notify_usage_80 | No | Send the 80%-of-quota warning | |
| notify_incidents | No | Send incident notices | |
| notify_usage_100 | No | Send the quota-reached notice |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the mutation and scope, but it does not clarify whether omitted parameters are left unchanged or reset to defaults—a significant ambiguity given that all four parameters are optional. It also omits any auth, persistence, or side-effect details.
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?
One sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then compactly lists all relevant settings. Every phrase earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 simple scalar-only setter, the description plus the 100% schema coverage handles the core invocation details. The main gap is the missing partial-update semantics: because no parameters are required, an agent needs to know whether providing only one preference preserves or resets the others.
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 schema already documents each parameter, but the description adds useful meaning beyond the schema: it ties the booleans to the 80% and 100% monthly-quota thresholds and specifies that the timezone is for the console and must be an ActiveSupport/IANA name. This enriches the otherwise minimal schema descriptions.
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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and names a precise resource: the account owner's notification preferences. It further enumerates the exact preferences—80% and 100% usage alerts, incident notices, and the console timezone—making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools.
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 intended use is inferable: an agent should call this when modifying notification preferences. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over nearby settings-related siblings such as service_settings or update_account_insights, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.