delete a notification. requires write scope.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "delete_notification"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | notification ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds an authorization requirement (write scope), which is genuine value beyond annotations, but says nothing about irreversibility, whether the notification can be recovered, or what happens on a missing ID.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. It is efficient for the tool's complexity, though the lowercase fragment style is slightly informal.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and destructiveness annotations, so most needed information is present. The gap is that a destructive operation with no output schema should say whether deletion is permanent, which the description leaves unaddressed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'id' parameter (uuid format, notification ID), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no additional meaning about the identifier or its source, which is acceptable at baseline 3.
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 gives a specific verb+resource ("delete a notification") that is unambiguous against siblings such as update_notification. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from other delete_* tools, but the resource noun already makes confusion unlikely.
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?
It states a prerequisite (write scope) but offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like update_notification, and no warning about when deletion is a bad idea. There is only implied usage from the verb.
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.