GoCertius MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

notification_request_send

Destructive

Send a certified notification to all recipients. Delivery is asynchronous; poll the notification status until delivered before retrieving certificates.

Instructions

Trigger delivery of a certified notification to all added recipients. Returns immediately — delivery is async. Poll notification_request_status until status is DELIVERED before retrieving certificates.

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": {
      "caseFileId": "<caseFileId>",
      "notificationRequestId": "<notificationRequestId>"
    },
    "name": "notification_request_send"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`caseFileId`	Yes
`notificationRequestId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.5.1Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) by noting immediate return, async delivery, and the need for polling. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences that are well-structured and front-loaded. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Explains async behavior but omits parameter details and does not specify what the return value is (e.g., a request ID or status). Given no output schema, more detail on the immediate response would help completeness.

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

Parameters2/5

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

No parameter descriptions despite 0% schema coverage. The two required parameters (caseFileId, notificationRequestId) are not explained, leaving the agent to infer their purpose from context. This is a significant gap.

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 clearly states it triggers delivery of a certified notification to all recipients, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like notification_request_create (which creates the request) and notification_request_status (which checks status).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly mentions async delivery and advises polling notification_request_status until DELIVERED before retrieving certificates. While it doesn't list when not to use it, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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