List a user's contact methods (email, phone/SMS) and whether each is enabled to verify their alert notification preferences.
List a user's configured contact methods (email, phone/SMS, etc), including whether each is enabled. Contains contact PII. Requires a username from alertops_list_users.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_name | Yes | Username, from alertops_list_users. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the data "Contains contact PII," which is important context for handling sensitive information. It also indicates the output includes enabled status, giving the agent useful behavioral expectations beyond a bare 'get' verb.
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?
Two sentences deliver the core purpose, output detail, privacy warning, and input dependency with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.
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 single-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is listed, that enabled status is included, that the data is sensitive, and how to obtain the username. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact return structure, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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 schema already documents the only parameter with 100% coverage: "Username, from alertops_list_users." The description repeats this dependency but does not add new detail about format, validation, or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: "List a user's configured contact methods." It also clarifies the scope (email, phone/SMS, enabled status) and is clearly distinct from siblings like alertops_list_users and alertops_get_user_schedule, so an agent can identify the right tool without confusion.
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 supplies a clear prerequisite: "Requires a username from alertops_list_users." This tells the agent where the input must come from and implies the workflow of listing users first. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's purpose is specific enough that there is no obvious sibling conflict.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.