get_notification
Retrieve a specific notification by its ID to view its details.
Instructions
Get a notification by ID.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notification_id | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Retrieve a specific notification by its ID to view its details.
Get a notification by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notification_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only operation via 'get', but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond that. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks details on safety, idempotence, or side effects.
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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. Every word is purposeful.
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 a simple get operation and an output schema defining return values, the description is mostly adequate. It does not explain what a notification is or error conditions, but these are minor gaps.
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 description mentions 'by ID', linking the sole parameter to its purpose, but adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name 'notification_id'. Schema coverage is 0%, so description should compensate more.
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 'Get a notification by ID' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (notification) with the retrieval method (by ID). It is specific but does not differentiate from other get_by_ID tools among siblings.
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 like create_notification or list_*. The description gives no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/RosenAdvertising/smokeball-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server