get_notificationsRead current Android notifications by package and title/text to review and clear accumulated alerts. Use it to inspect pending notifications before deciding what to dismiss.
Read current notifications (package + title/text), best-effort. Useful for clearing the pile-up.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'Best-effort' is a genuinely useful disclosure of unreliability, but the phrase 'useful for clearing the pile-up' leaves ambiguity about whether calling it dismisses/clears notifications or merely lists them, so side effects are unclear.
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 tight sentences with the resource and returned fields front-loaded and no padding. Nothing redundant or wasted.
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 does briefly cover what comes back (package + title/text), and the zero-param nature leaves little else to specify. The only gap is the unclear side-effect semantics around clearing notifications.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds return-content detail (package, title, text) that the empty schema does not provide, which is a real value-add for an output-schema-less tool.
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 verb ('Read') and resource ('current notifications') and names the fields surfaced (package + title/text). Sibling tools are unrelated, so differentiation is not needed, but the definition is clear on its own.
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?
'Useful for clearing the pile-up' implies a use case but gives no explicit when/when-not or pointer to an alternative. Siblings don't overlap, so the missing exclusions matter less, leaving implied usage only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.