Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
EAD Factory MCP Server

EAD Factory MCP Server

Official
by g-digital-by-Garrigues
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

notification_request_send

Activates a notification request to trigger delivery to all added receivers, waiting until each notification finishes and returning each one's final delivery state.

Instructions

Activates a notification request, triggering delivery to every added receiver across their configured channels (email/SMS/Noticeman/WhatsApp/RCS). Runs as an MCP Task (bounded-polling until every receiver's notification leaves its in-flight state — EAD Factory's upstream emits no events for this transition). Requires: notification_request_create -> requestId, at least one receiver added via notification_receiver_add. On completion, returns each notification's id and final delivery state (per-receiver failures are reported in the result, not treated as a Task failure). REQUIRES an MCP client with Tasks support — from a client without it this call fails; in that case create the request with autosend: true (notification_request_create) and poll notification_request_status yourself. Use notification_request_status to check progress without waiting.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "requestId": "<requestId>"
    },
    "name": "notification_request_send"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestIdYesMANDATORY. UUID of the notification request. Obtain from notification_request_create.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.1

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are all false (readOnly, idempotent, etc.), so the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains the bounded-polling task behavior, the lack of upstream events, per-receiver failure reporting, and the requirement for MCP Tasks support—far beyond basic annotation info. No contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Though long, every sentence earns its place: main action, task mechanics, prerequisites, completion behavior, client requirement, alternatives, cross-reference. It's dense and well-structured with no fluff, front-loading the core purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (MCP task, failure handling, client constraints), this description covers all necessary context: what triggers, what it requires, what happens on completion, what to do without Tasks support, and which sibling to use for status. With no output schema, it even describes the return value.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%: requestId is fully described with format and provenance. The description reinforces it ('Requires: notification_request_create -> requestId') but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Activates a notification request, triggering delivery to every added receiver.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like notification_request_create (creates), notification_request_status (checks status), and notification_receiver_add (adds receivers).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit prerequisites are given (notification_request_create for requestId, notification_receiver_add for receivers). It also provides alternatives for clients without Tasks support (use autosend:true and poll status), and points to notification_request_status for progress checking. This is model usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools