Remove a specific notification from your job search dashboard by its ID to keep your alerts organized and current.
Delete a notification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notification_id | Yes | The notification ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that the operation is irreversible/destructive, whether the notification must belong to the caller, or what happens on an invalid ID. Only the implicit mutation nature of 'Delete' is conveyed.
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 no filler and the action front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a trivial single-parameter tool, though it is so terse that it omits any useful clause.
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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential mechanics. It falls short only on the destructive-action warning that a delete tool with no annotations arguably warrants.
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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The notification ID to delete'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, ownership, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.
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?
States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a notification'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings such as mark_notification_read, delete_all_schedules-style bulk deletes, or get_notifications, leaving the agent to infer boundaries.
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 gives no guidance on when to delete versus mark as read (mark_notification_read / mark_notifications_read), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.