Nova

Acknowledge a notification

acknowledge_notification

Idempotent

Marks a notification as acknowledged or dismissed so device screens can clear alerts and record whether the user handled it.

Instructions

Mark a notification as acknowledged or dismissed (used by device screens).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "notification_id": "<notification_id>"
    },
    "name": "acknowledge_notification"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	No	acknowledged or dismissed	acknowledged
`notification_id`	Yes	The notification id

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, which the description does not contradict—and idempotency is consistent with 'mark'. The description adds only a mild context note (device screens); it does not say whether the notification disappears from lists, whether the change is reversible, or how it interacts with snooze.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical about device screens is the only soft element and could have been spent on the effect of the action instead.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter state change with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. The main omission—the observable effect on the notification list—is minor given the annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the enum plus default are already documented, so the description's mention of 'acknowledged or dismissed' simply mirrors the schema. It adds no semantics about what the action does to the notification beyond the field names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Mark ... as acknowledged or dismissed') and resource (notification), so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like read_notifications or snooze_reminder, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for acknowledging/dismissing notifications, with a vague hint that device screens use it. No guidance on when to prefer it over snooze_reminder or read_notifications, and no stated preconditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.