The coach's in-app notifications, newest first (paginate with nextCursor).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_notifications"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful ordering and pagination context, but it does not say whether read notifications are included, what the default page size is, or how the cursor behaves beyond the name nextCursor, which does not match the schema's 'cursor' parameter.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The only flaw is the slight mismatch between 'nextCursor' in the description and 'cursor' in the schema, which could have been avoided in the same space.
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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves too much unspecified: limit semantics are absent, cursor usage is only vaguely gestured at, and what a notification contains is not described. The annotations cover safety but not enough of the operational context.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only gestures at pagination via 'nextCursor' and never explains the limit parameter (default 20, maximum 100). The cursor name even differs from the schema's 'cursor', so an agent gets little reliable parameter semantics from the description.
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 states a specific verb and resource — the coach's in-app notifications — plus the ordering (newest first). It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like get_unread_notification_count or mark_notifications_read, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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?
Listing notifications is the implied use, and the pagination hint suggests iterative retrieval. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_unread_notification_count or the mark-read siblings, nor any stated preconditions.
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.