ntfy_publishSend notifications to a configured ntfy topic. Customize title, message, priority, tags, and optional delay to deliver targeted alerts.
Send a notification to the server-configured ntfy topic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| icon | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| click | No | ||
| delay | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| markdown | No | ||
| priority | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| topic | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| responseText | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself, but it only restates the action and the fact that the topic is server-configured. It does not mention potential side effects beyond the obvious send, rate limits, authentication requirements, failure behavior, or delivery guarantees.
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 filler, so it is concise in form. However, it is too terse for a tool with eight parameters and zero schema descriptions, making it under-specified rather than appropriately sized.
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?
The description establishes the fixed server-configured topic, which is useful context, but it leaves almost everything else unexplained. Parameter semantics, optional field behavior, priority enum values, delay syntax, and operational constraints are missing, so an agent cannot confidently use the tool beyond sending a basic message.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions none of the eight parameters. The agent gets no guidance on message semantics, priority values, delay format, markdown behavior, tags, icon, click, or title, so the parameter meaning is entirely undocumented.
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 clearly states the action ('Send a notification') and the resource ('server-configured ntfy topic'), so the core purpose is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from its sibling ntfy_ping, missing the opportunity for full 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?
No usage guidance is provided: the description does not say when to use this tool instead of ntfy_ping, when a notification is appropriate, or what prerequisites might apply. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and title.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.