dismiss_notificationDismiss a specific Android notification by key, package, or title, or clear all dismissible notifications at once.
Dismiss one notification (by key, or package/title) or every clearable one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| device | No | ||
| package | No | ||
| clear_all | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'clearable' but does not explain side effects, irreversibility, permissions, or how the tool handles the clear_all flag. It does not disclose whether dismissing is destructive or if it affects other system state.
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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with the main action. It avoids fluff and directly states the core functionality. However, it is so terse that it under-specifies important details, but that is a completeness issue rather than a structure issue.
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?
Given 5 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the selection logic clearly, omits the device parameter, and does not describe return values or error conditions. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of parameter and usage context.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions key, package, title, and clear_all indirectly ('every clearable one'), but the phrasing 'by key, or package/title' is ambiguous about how selectors combine. The 'device' parameter is entirely unmentioned, and the logic for when clear_all applies is unclear.
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 (dismiss) and the resource (notification), and distinguishes two modes: single (by key or package/title) or all clearable. It is specific and understandable, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like notification_action.
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 use this tool versus alternatives such as read_notifications or notification_action. The description implies usage (dismissing notifications) but does not offer exclusions or context about when to prefer this over related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.