List the checks recorded against one notification submission. Checks are the gates a submission has to clear before it goes out, so a failing check here is the reason a template is stuck rather than live.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| submission_id | Yes | The submission ID whose checks to list | |
| notification_id | Yes | The notification template ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / submission_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"The submission ID for the checks resource"New value: +"The submission ID whose checks to list"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation, and the description adds useful domain context about checks being gates. It does not, however, describe the return shape, whether empty results are possible, or any other behavioral details, so the added value beyond annotations is moderate.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: the first states exactly what the tool does, and the second provides one piece of high-value context. The key scope is front-loaded.
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 two-parameter, read-only list operation with fully documented parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is complete. It explains the domain meaning of checks and how to interpret a failure, and no additional information is needed to invoke the tool correctly.
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 both required parameters have clear descriptions ('The submission ID whose checks to list' and 'The notification template ID'). The description only refers to 'one notification submission' and adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the checks recorded against one notification submission.' It also defines checks as gates, making it clear this is about per-submission check results, distinct from list_notifications (all notifications) and update_notification_checks (mutating checks).
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 second sentence gives clear diagnostic context: a failing check here explains why a template is stuck instead of live, which tells an agent when to call this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.
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.