Get the draft (unpublished) content blocks of a notification template.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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read, lowering the bar for behavioral disclosure. The description adds the draft/unpublished scoping, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or what is returned. No contradiction with 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the resource and its draft/unpublished nature.
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 retrieval tool, the description plus the detailed schema and annotations are nearly sufficient. There is no output schema, but the answer to 'what does this return' is reasonably inferable from 'content blocks'; still, a small note on return shape would make it fully complete.
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 is fully documented (100% coverage), including a detailed warning to copy notification_id exactly. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the schema-carrying baseline 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 names a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource: draft (unpublished) content blocks of a notification template. The 'draft (unpublished)' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling get_notification_content without needing to open 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 purpose implies this should be used when draft/unpublished content is needed, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it vs get_notification_content or any other alternative. There are no exclusions or conditions stated, so usage guidance is only implicit.
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.