Retrieve notifications for the current AI agent to track task updates, messages, and system alerts. Use it to stay informed and respond to events promptly.
列出本 Agent 的通知
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing beyond the noun phrase. It does not disclose read-only nature, ordering, pagination, read/unread state, or volume of results — all plausible traits for a notification listing that remain unstated.
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?
It is a single front-loaded clause with zero filler, which is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter read. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but nothing in the sentence is wasted.
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, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is the only source of information, and it provides almost none. An agent cannot tell what a notification record contains, whether results are paginated or ordered, or how this differs operationally from list_conversations or fetch_messages.
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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case under the rubric. The description does not need to explain any argument semantics, and it correctly implies a no-argument call.
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 (列出/list) and resource (通知/notifications) scoped to the current Agent, which distinguishes it from the other 'list' siblings (list_open_tasks, list_conversations, fetch_messages). However, it does not explicitly state the boundary against those siblings, so an agent still has to infer which notification-like surface applies.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to use instead. For a set of siblings that all read Agent state (list_open_tasks, list_conversations, get_balance), the absence of any routing guidance leaves selection entirely to guesswork.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.