Send a test notification through all configured channels to verify delivery and identify which channels fail.
Send one test notification through every configured channel and report which ones arrived. A real message goes out to each, so anyone reading those channels sees it
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| server | No | Remote server name from config (optional, runs locally if omitted) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.35.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the key behavioral side effect ('A real message goes out to each, so anyone reading those channels sees it'), which is crucial for an agent to anticipate impact. It also indicates it reports arrival status. Although annotations are absent, this description covers the primary behavioral nuance.
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 two sentences with no filler. The main action and outcome are front-loaded, and the side-effect warning follows. Every word earns its place.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the purpose, the real-message side effect, and that it reports arrival. It does not detail the report format or error handling, but these are minor given the simple nature of the operation.
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?
The input schema fully documents the single optional parameter (server) with its description 'Remote server name from config (optional, runs locally if omitted)'. The tool description adds no further detail about this parameter, so with 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 applies.
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 one test notification), the scope (every configured channel), and the outcome (report which ones arrived). It is distinct from siblings like alerts or system_status, which do not test notification channels.
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?
The description implies when to use this tool (to test notification channels) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. However, since no sibling tool performs a similar function, the lack of explicit guidance is not a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.