Get the count of unread notifications to identify pending messages that require attention.
Returns the number of unread notifications.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_notification_count"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, yet it only states the return value. It does not explicitly indicate that this is a read-only operation or that it does not modify notification state, leaving the agent to infer safety and side effects.
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?
The description is a single, succinct sentence that front-loads the action ('Returns') and the key qualifier ('unread'). Every word contributes to the meaning, making it appropriately concise and well structured.
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, the description provides the essential return value and scope qualifier ('unread'). However, it omits information about user scoping and non-mutating behavior, which would have been provided by annotations, so it is not fully complete for an agent without prior context.
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 input schema has zero parameters and is fully covered, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description adds the clarifying qualifier 'unread,' but since there are no parameters to document, no additional parameter-level meaning is needed.
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 'returns' and identifies the resource as 'unread notifications,' clearly indicating the tool produces a count. Although it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_notifications, the focus on a numeric count of unread items is sufficiently distinct.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_notifications or mark_as_read. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or mention of scenarios where this count is preferable over retrieving full notification details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.