panel_notificationsRetrieve paginated notifications from a Booksy Biz salon panel bell, filter by new, active, or archived status, and optionally bypass the local cache.
The notification list from the panel bell.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, from 1 | |
| fresh | No | Skip the local cache | |
| status | No | Which list | active |
| per_page | No | Items per page, at most 100 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description need only add context beyond that — which it does not. Notably it is silent on the one non-obvious behavior in the schema: the `fresh` flag bypasses a local cache, implying this call is normally cached and possibly stale, a fact an agent needs before trusting results.
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?
One short sentence with zero padding and the resource front-loaded, which is structurally sound. The brevity is under-specification rather than economy, though, so it does not earn top marks.
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 four-parameter paginated feed with no output schema, the description should say what a notification record looks like and whether paging is required to get everything. Instead it says nothing about the return shape, cache/staleness behavior, or which notifications are included, leaving real gaps for a read tool whose results feed into an agent's 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 description coverage is 100%, including the status enum and per_page cap, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing to it — no clarification of what 'new' vs 'active' vs 'archived' mean, nor when caching makes `fresh` necessary. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting alone.
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?
It names a specific resource (the notification list) and its origin (the panel bell), which separates it from business_notification_settings and the chat feed siblings. But it is a bare noun phrase with no verb and no scope statement — an agent cannot tell what the list contains, whose notifications they are, or how it differs from chat_conversations beyond guesswork.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all — no mention of when to reach for this instead of business_notification_settings or chat_conversations, and no note that it returns unread/active items by default. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'notification list'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.