Get the published content blocks of a notification template.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that only published content blocks are returned, not draft or historical versions.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and the key qualifier 'published' appears early.
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 one-parameter, read-only getter with a fully documented schema, the description gives enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly. There is no output schema, but the description names the returned entity ('published content blocks'), which is sufficient for this simple case.
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 description does not need to re-explain the parameter. The schema itself provides strong guidance about copying the notification_id exactly; the tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that.
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 names a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete resource ('published content blocks of a notification template'). The qualifier 'published' distinguishes it from the sibling get_notification_draft_content, so an agent can tell this tool apart without opening the schema.
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 word 'published' implies this tool is for published content rather than draft content, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as get_notification_draft_content or get_notification. No when-not or alternative routing is provided.
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.