How you hear about notes that mention you in a shop: email (on unless you turned it off) and text (off by default; texts are not sent yet). Your own settings only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| shop_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| shop_id | Yes | ||
| mention_text | Yes | ||
| mention_email | Yes | ||
| texts_sending | Yes | ||
| kit_list_email | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / kit_list_emailAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "shop_id",
- "mention_email",
- "mention_text",
- "texts_sending"
-]New value: +[
+ "shop_id",
+ "mention_email",
+ "mention_text",
+ "kit_list_email",
+ "texts_sending"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and usefully discloses default states: email on unless disabled, text off by default, and texts not yet sent. It also establishes authorization scope ('your own settings only'), though it does not explicitly characterize read-only behavior or permissions.
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 compact, front-loaded sentence with parenthetical defaults; every clause (email default, text default, rollout limitation, own-settings scope) carries useful information without repetition.
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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, defaults, and scope, so return values need not be explained. However, it leaves the required shop_id semantically unexplained and does not route to the sibling setter, leaving clear gaps.
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 sole parameter shop_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description only alludes to 'in a shop' without explaining that shop_id selects the shop or what value to provide. It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name.
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?
Describes the resource as your notification preferences for notes that mention you in a shop, including email and text channels, and scopes it to 'Your own settings only.' It does not explicitly say 'get' or contrast with notifications_setPrefs, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
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 scope 'Your own settings only' implies this is for inspecting one's own preferences, but the description never states when to use it instead of notifications_setPrefs or any other alternative. Usage is inferable but not explicit.
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.