get_notificationFetch one visible ping by notification id, including its current action_state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notification_id | Yes | Room notification id. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | A privacy-minimized, chainable PingRoom notification result. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / result / properties / origin_agentAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Present when a connected agent originated the ping: its handle and display name.",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context by restricting retrieval to 'visible' notifications and highlighting 'current action_state', which signals that the state may change over time.
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?
One sentence with no filler: verb, resource, lookup key, and returned field are all front-loaded. Every part of the sentence earns its place.
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 get-by-id read tool, the description is nearly complete: annotations cover safety, the output schema covers return shape, and the parameter is fully documented. The only small ambiguity is what exactly counts as 'visible', but this is minor for invocation.
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% and the single parameter notification_id is already documented as 'Room notification id.' The description only repeats 'notification id' without adding extra format, source, or usage detail beyond the schema.
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 ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('one visible ping'), and the exact lookup key ('by notification id'). It also says the response includes 'current action_state', which distinguishes this from list-oriented siblings like list_notifications and wait_for_notification.
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 usage context is implied: use this when you have a notification id and want that single notification's current state. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over list_notifications or wait_for_notification, nor mention any exclusions.
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.