Delete all notifications at once to declutter your hosting account. Irreversible action requires explicit confirmation.
Delete all notifications. Irreversible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose irreversibility, which is the most critical behavioral fact for a destructive operation. However, it does not explain the scope of 'all' (user-level vs system-wide), whether it clears unread/read states, or what side effects the deletion has.
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?
Two short sentences, both essential, with the destructive warning placed prominently. No filler or redundancy.
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?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations POST, the description is thin. It omits the confirm parameter behavior, does not specify scope (e.g., all notifications for the current user vs global), and gives no fallback or recovery information. The agent can call it safely enough, but only because the schema enforces confirm=true.
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?
There is one required parameter, 'confirm', and the schema provides no description. The description never mentions that confirmation is required or what the parameter semantics are, so the agent must infer from the schema alone that 'confirm' must be true.
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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('all notifications'), making the core operation clear. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling ecp_notifications_delete, but the word 'all' conveys bulk scope adequately.
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 guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over ecp_notifications_delete or ecp_notifications_mark_read. There are no prerequisites, no warning about pending confirmation requirements, and no mention of whether unread notifications are also deleted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.