Retrieve a notification template by ID. Optionally request draft, published, or a version such as v001.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | No | Version to retrieve: "draft", "published" (default — omit this to get it), or a version string like "v001" | |
| notification_id | Yes | The notification template ID. Copy it exactly, character for character, from the response that returned it — never retype it from memory or reconstruct it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / notification_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"The notification template ID"New value: +"The notification template ID. Copy it exactly, character for character, from the response that returned it — never retype it from memory or reconstruct it."Input schema / properties / version / descriptionPrevious value: -"Version to retrieve: draft, published, or a string like v001"New value: +"Version to retrieve: \"draft\", \"published\" (default — omit this to get it), or a version string like \"v001\""Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds the version-selection behavior but does not mention defaults, response shape, or any caveats about what is returned.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the optional version behavior is stated efficiently.
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?
With complete schema coverage, a readOnlyHint annotation, and no nested objects or output schema, the description covers what is needed. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the published default, but the schema already provides that.
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%, so the schema already documents both notification_id and version thoroughly. The description adds little beyond restating that version can be a draft, published, or version string.
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 a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('notification template by ID'), and the mention of draft/published/versions adds scope. It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like get_notification_content or get_notification_draft_content.
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 usage for fetching a specific notification template and clarifies version options, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over get_notification_content, get_notification_draft_content, or get_notification_metrics. There is no explicit alternative routing.
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.