get_notificationsFetch Thndr in-app notifications, including order fills, rejections, and triggered price alerts, newest first. Filter by unread status and page through results.
In-app notifications from Thndr (order fills, rejections, triggered price alerts…), newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| pageCount | No | ||
| unreadOnly | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: the newest-first ordering and what kinds of events appear. It says nothing about pagination behavior or how unread state is surfaced, which matters for a paginated list.
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?
One compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and its content. The parenthetical example list is slightly long but conveys real value in identifying what appears here.
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 no output schema the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a clearly paginated, filterable list tool it leaves the three input parameters entirely unexplained, which is the main remaining gap.
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% for three parameters (page, pageCount, unreadOnly), and the description does not compensate at all. It never explains the paging model or what unreadOnly does, so an agent must guess that unreadOnly filters to unread items and that page/pageCount paginate.
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 resource (in-app notifications) with concrete content examples (order fills, rejections, price alerts) and a default ordering (newest first). This separates it from sibling get_alerts and mark_notifications_read implicitly, though it never names them outright.
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 statement of when to call this versus mark_notifications_read (the write counterpart) or get_alerts (the alert-configuration tool). Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and resource description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.