POST /alerts — Create an alert
Create a new alert. The system will search for matching content and deliver digests on the configured frequency. Maximum 10 active alerts per user.
⚠️ WRITE operation: this mutates your DC account data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| description | Yes | Alert description — what the alert should look for (max 500 chars) | |
| notifyDaily | Yes | Whether daily digests are enabled | |
| notifyWeekly | Yes | Whether weekly digests are enabled |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly warns '⚠️ WRITE operation: this mutates your DC account data,' which no annotations provide. It also discloses that the system will search and deliver digests, and sets a maximum of 10 alerts, adding behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not cover error responses or permission prerequisites.
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 concise: a headline, a behavior sentence, a limit sentence, and a mutation warning. All sentences carry actionable information and it is front-loaded with the endpoint and purpose.
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 create tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, this is nearly complete. It covers the action, system behavior, and a key constraint. The only missing piece is expected return value or error handling, but the schema and simplicity compensate.
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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes each parameter's purpose. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states 'Create an alert' and explains what an alert does (searches for matching content, delivers digests). It distinguishes from sibling tools like alerts_by_id_update and alerts_by_id_delete by focusing on creation.
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 implies when to use this tool (to create a new alert) but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or conditions like when to update an existing alert instead. The limit of 10 active alerts is noted but not framed as a usage guideline.
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 the large number of tools, each has a detailed description that clearly distinguishes its purpose. Minor potential overlaps (e.g., search vs. resource-specific search, own vs. other's agenda) are well documented, so an agent can differentiate them.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun or resource_subresource_action pattern in snake_case. A few tools are just nouns (e.g., 'alerts', 'announcements'), but these are top-level listing endpoints; overall the naming is predictable.
85 tools is very high for a single server, making it difficult for an agent to efficiently explore and select the right tool. While each tool seems justified for the broad domain, the count feels overwhelming and could be streamlined.
The tool surface covers most major areas (events, trips, chapters, rooms, search, profile, etc.) with CRUD or lifecycle operations. However, the lack of a 'send message' tool for rooms is a notable gap, and some resources (e.g., events) are read-only on creation/update, limiting agent workflows.
