List your notifications — task assignments, status changes, sprint updates, invites, and more. Returns unread notifications by default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results (default 20) | |
| unread_only | No | Only return unread notifications (default: true) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry safety and side-effect information. It states 'Returns unread notifications by default,' which adds a useful default filter, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, whether listing affects read status, or the response format. This is minimal but not misleading.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the action and scope. The list of examples adds value without bloat.
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 list tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the core purpose and default behavior. However, it lacks any mention of return structure or when to prefer alternative tools, leaving some ambiguity about comprehensive usage.
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 fully documents both parameters (limit and unread_only) with clear descriptions and defaults, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating the unread default, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.
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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'your notifications' and enumerates examples (task assignments, status changes, sprint updates, invites), making the purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes from generic listing tools, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling 'list_pending_invites' for invites.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_pending_invites' for invites or 'mark_notification_read' for marking. The description implies it is the general notification listing tool but doesn't state exclusions or recommended scenarios.
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.
Most tools have distinct resource+action pairs (e.g., create_task vs update_task vs delete_task), but the large number of list/get/search tools creates some potential confusion, especially between get_context, search_entities, and find_documents. Descriptions are detailed and help, but the volume makes navigation less clear.
The majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, delete_, list_, update_, etc.), with clear prefixes like add/remove and link/unlink. Deviations like 'whoami', 'find_documents' vs 'search_entities', and 'setup_organization' prevent a perfect score.
62 tools is far beyond the typical MCP server scope and overwhelms agents with too many choices. Even if each tool is individually useful, the sheer count makes it difficult for an agent to efficiently select the right tool, increasing the likelihood of misselection.
The domain is well covered for projects, tasks, teams, sessions, and notifications, but there are notable gaps: no update_document, no get_task (only list/update/delete), no get_user, no reject_invite, and sprint management lacks update/delete operations. Core CRUD is present for many entities, but not all.
