notifications_clearDismiss all notifications for the authenticated Mastodon account at once, clearing the notification list so you can start fresh.
Dismiss all notifications for the authenticated account.
Returns: str: JSON confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 covered. The description adds the auth scoping ('authenticated account') but does not disclose whether the dismissal is permanent, reversible, or affects server-side data beyond the local client, leaving the destructive consequence unelaborated.
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?
Front-loaded with the action and scope in one efficient sentence. The trailing 'Returns: str: JSON confirmation' is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but it costs little.
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 zero-parameter tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description is essentially sufficient. The only missing piece is the relationship to notification_dismiss and notifications_get, which an agent would benefit from knowing.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify and it correctly adds no parameter noise. No syntax or filtering options exist to document.
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) and resource (all notifications) scoped to the authenticated account, which is more precise than the bare name. However, it never names or contrasts with the sibling notification_dismiss, so the agent must infer that this is the bulk form versus the single-item form.
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 word 'all' implicitly signals bulk clearing in contrast to the singular sibling notification_dismiss, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no stated exclusion (e.g., that this cannot be undone or cannot be filtered). Usage is only inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.