notification_dismissDismiss a single Mastodon notification by its numeric ID to clear it from the account's notification feed.
Dismiss (clear) a single notification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notification_id | Yes | Numeric notification ID. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.5Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object",
+ "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
+}v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. However, the description adds nothing about what dismissal does to the underlying data (permanent removal vs. hiding), whether it requires auth, or any rate limits. It largely restsates the name.
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 filler. The parenthetical '(clear)' is the only addition and it aids comprehension without excess.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. But for a destructive, idempotent mutation with an openWorld hint, the description should clarify scope relative to notifications_clear and any auth requirements. The one-liner is inadequate for a destructive 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents notification_id as a numeric string. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (dismiss/clear) and resource (a single notification), and the parenthetical clarifies intent. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling notifications_clear, which likely clears all, but does not name that distinction explicitly.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description does not mention the sibling notifications_clear, which is the obvious alternative for bulk clearing, leaving the agent to infer the single-vs-bulk distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.