paging-mcp

notify

Send urgent notifications to on-call teams via 100+ channels like WhatsApp and Slack. Supports severity levels and channel filtering for targeted alerts.

Instructions

Send a notification to all configured channels.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "notify"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes	Message body. Most channels accept plain text or markdown.
`title`	Yes	Short subject line shown by channels that support titles.
`channels`	No	Optional subset of redacted URL prefixes to filter to. If omitted, dispatches to every configured channel.
`severity`	No	"info" \| "success" \| "warning" \| "failure". Some channels color or icon-tag based on this; default "warning".	warning

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, placing the full burden on description. The description states it sends a notification, but omits potential side effects (e.g., external calls, rate limits, persistence). It is adequate but lacks depth for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence is very concise, but underspecified. Could include more context (e.g., that it dispatches to all channels or uses defaults). Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity and presence of output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the action, though slightly more context about behavior would improve it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter information beyond the schema, which is sufficient. No additional semantic value is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states verb 'Send' and resource 'notification to all configured channels'. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'notify_one' by specifying 'all configured channels'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use for broadcasting to all channels, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'notify_one' or 'dry_run'. However, sibling names and context make the use case reasonably clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server