List notifications visible to the logged-in employee, with optional filters for unread status, event type, or project.
List notifications visible to the current employee. Requires notifications:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| event_type | No | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| unread_only | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the permission requirement ('notifications:read') and the scoping 'visible to the current employee', which are not in the annotations. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the read-only hint, such as auth needs and scope limitations.
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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, and the permission requirement is clearly stated. Efficient and well-structured with zero wasted words.
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?
Despite an output schema, the description omits any explanation of the four filter parameters and their defaults, which are critical for effective use. It lacks guidance on pagination, ordering, or filtering behavior, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct invocation.
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%, and the description provides no information about the parameters (limit, event_type, project_id, unread_only). An agent cannot infer their meanings or defaults from the description, which is a significant gap since the schema has no descriptions either.
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 clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'notifications', specifies the scope 'visible to the current employee', and includes the required permission 'notifications:read'. This distinguishes it from sibling notification tools like publish, get, and ack, and is not a tautology.
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 provides clear context (listing notifications for the current user) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. It implies usage for listing notifications but lacks explicit routing to sibling tools such as gateway_notification_get for single retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.