Retrieve read-only notifications with unread counts and deep links; filter for unread only and paginate results. Does not mark notifications as read.
Notifications with unread_count and deep links (read-only; no mark-read).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| unread_only | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Input schema / properties / tenant_idRemoved value: -{
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "default": null,
- "title": "Tenant Id"
-}v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does usefully declare read-only behavior with no mark-read side effect, which is the critical safety trait. It says nothing about pagination behavior, permissions, or limits, so the behavioral picture is only partially filled in.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no padding and the read-only constraint placed early. It is on the edge of under-specification rather than wasteful, so it is efficient but not exemplary.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, yet the description restates return fields while leaving all three parameters unexplained and offering no pagination or scope guidance. For a tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, more was needed.
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 0% across three parameters, and the description explains none of them; 'unread_count' refers to a returned field, not the 'unread_only' parameter. Names like limit/offset/unread_only are partly self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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+resource ('Notifications') and adds scope detail (unread_count, deep links, read-only). It distinguishes from write operations but does not name a near sibling such as list_announcements, so an agent must still infer which notification-like feed to pick.
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 parenthetical 'read-only; no mark-read' implies when this tool applies and warns that a separate mutation path is needed, but it never states explicit when-to-use or when-not conditions or names an alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.