Nova

Read notifications

read_notifications

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch recent Nova notifications—reminders, escalations, messages, and visitor alerts—to help callers review what they missed.

Instructions

'What are my notifications?' Recent things Nova told the caller: reminders, escalations, messages, visitors.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "read_notifications"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that these are recent items Nova told the caller and lists content categories, but it does not mention ordering, unread status, pagination, or whether reading affects notification state.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted text. The quoted user question quickly signals intent, and the second sentence enumerates the relevant content types.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is largely complete because it says what notifications contain and implies recency. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance versus sibling tools that also cover messages or alerts.

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

Parameters4/5

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

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The empty schema is self-explanatory, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics.

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?

The description clearly identifies the resource as notifications and specifies the content types: reminders, escalations, messages, and visitors. It states what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish this tool from overlapping siblings such as read_messages, list_alerts, or recent_activity.

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?

The quoted user question "What are my notifications?" implies a clear usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of read_messages, list_alerts, recent_activity, or acknowledge_notification, and no exclusions are stated.

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