Reload notification code while preserving in-memory credentials, deduplication state, and the delivery queue; optionally resend current notifications without losing queued or duplicate-tracking data.
Reload notification code, preserving in-memory credentials, dedup state and delivery queue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resend_current | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description adds useful behavioral context by stating that in-memory credentials, dedup state, and the delivery queue are preserved. However, it does not disclose side effects, downtime, permissions, or what is reset/destroyed during the reload.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is crisp, though for a runtime-refresh operation it may be too terse to carry the needed usage and parameter meaning.
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?
With no annotations, low parameter description coverage, and an output schema only covering return values, the description is missing key context: invocation conditions, resend_current semantics, and side effects. It states the core action and preserved state but not enough for confident 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?
The only parameter, resend_current, is not mentioned in the description despite 0% schema description coverage. The description therefore fails to explain what the parameter changes about the reload behavior.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: reload notification code. It is distinguishable from siblings like refresh_inventory_implementation by the 'notification' resource, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate alternatives.
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?
It does not state when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tools are alternatives. The only implied guidance is the bare notion of reloading notification code.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.