dismissNotificationDismiss an important notification for the authenticated user, unpinning their own row from the Important section. Only important notifications (currently: connection_broken) can be dismissed. Idempotent. Requires the Notification Center feature; returns 404 when it is not enabled for the team.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The notification's unique identifier |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces idempotency while adding new context: the 404 error when Notification Center is not enabled, and the restriction to current type connection_broken. This goes beyond what annotations provide, disclosing a meaningful failure mode and domain constraint without contradicting the annotations.
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?
Three concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core action, followed by constraints and prerequisites. No filler, every sentence provides necessary information, and the structure is easily scannable.
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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the action, scope (authenticated user's own row), allowed types, idempotency, and a critical 404 failure condition. The prerequisites and side effects are clearly communicated, making the tool's behavior fully understandable for an agent.
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 input schema provides full coverage of the only parameter (id, with description 'The notification's unique identifier'), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description refers to the notification being dismissed but does not offer additional semantics beyond what the schema already states. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the 100% schema coverage.
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 'dismiss' with the resource 'important notification' and explains the concrete action of unpinning the user's row from the Important section. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like markNotificationRead or deleteNotification by focusing on the important-notification dismissal and explicitly narrowing the scope.
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 clearly states when to use this tool (to dismiss important notifications of type connection_broken) and provides an explicit exclusion ('Only important notifications... can be dismissed') along with a prerequisite (Notification Center feature must be enabled). It lacks an explicit mention of alternative tools, but the 'only' clause gives practical guidance for selecting this over other notification operations.
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.
Despite detailed descriptions, many tool names are highly ambiguous, with multiple tools covering the same conceptual actions (e.g., acceptClarityCaptureSuggestion vs. acceptClarityTeamAssignmentSuggestion, or the many deleteClarity*Interview tools). The set is so large that distinguishing between, say, listClarityFolders, listClarityProcesses, and listClarityProcessSummaries requires reading deep into descriptions, reducing agent selection accuracy.
The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun (e.g., createClarityProcess, listAgents, deleteQueue), and is remarkably consistent across the 316 tools. There are only minor deviations, such as 'fileSuggestedClarityProcesses' (verb + adjective noun) and 'bulkUpdateCasePriority' (where 'bulk' could be seen as a prefix), but overall the pattern holds strongly.
With 316 tools, this server is extremely oversized for any single agent to manage effectively. The massive number of tools suggests poor modularization—many of these tools likely belong in separate, smaller servers focused on specific domains (e.g., Clarity, Pulse, Agent management). The cognitive load for an agent to choose from 316 options is very high, leading to frequent misselection.
The tool surface covers an extraordinarily wide range of operations across the Duvo platform: agents, runs, cases, queues, Clarity processes, skills, integrations, notifications, teams, and more. Most resource types have full CRUD and lifecycle management. Notable minor gaps exist (e.g., no tools for managing specific notification batch severities dynamically, and some interview management is missing batch operations), but for the platform's scope, coverage is impressively thorough.