Retrieve Vinted account notifications, including favourites, price drops, sales, and messages, with pagination controls to review recent account activity.
Account notifications (favourites, price drops, sales, Vinted messages).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| per_page | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls well short: it doesn't confirm this is a read-only operation, doesn't say whether listing marks notifications as read (a real risk for notification endpoints), and doesn't mention auth or ordering. It adds only the content-type enumeration.
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 with zero filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity is closer to under-specification than to disciplined concision.
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?
No output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented parameters mean the description should be doing much more. As written, an agent cannot tell how results are paged or ordered, or how this differs from unread_counts/list_inbox.
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?
Both parameters (page, per_page) have 0% schema description coverage and are not mentioned at all in the description. The agent must guess that these are conventional pagination controls and infer the responses' paging semantics.
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 identifies the resource (account notifications) and enumerates the content types returned, so the agent knows roughly what comes back. But it's a bare noun phrase with no verb, and the mention of 'Vinted messages' overlaps with the sibling list_inbox without explaining the relationship, so sibling differentiation is weak.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus unread_counts or list_inbox, which are the obvious near-neighbours in the sibling list. No prerequisites, no note about read vs unread state, and no mention of pagination behaviour.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.