Send a notification to a team member requesting a status update on a specific task or general progress.
Send a notification to a team member requesting a status update on a specific task or in general
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| member | Yes | Team member handle to nudge | |
| message | No | Custom message | |
| task_id | No | Task ID to ask about |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'send a notification' but doesn't disclose whether this requires special permissions, whether it's rate-limited, whether it's destructive or reversible, or what happens if the member is unavailable. For a notification-sending tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('send a notification'). It is appropriately sized and contains no obvious filler, though it could benefit from a bit more context without becoming verbose.
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 annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the expected outcome, the response format, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that sends notifications, more context is needed to call it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format of member handle, what a custom message entails, constraints on task_id). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb and resource: send a notification to a team member to request a status update. It distinguishes itself from siblings like assign_task or update_task, which mutate tasks rather than notify people. However, it doesn't explicitly clarify whether it's a read or write operation, and its relationship to check_notifications or clear_notifications is not addressed.
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 implies usage for requesting status updates, but it doesn't say when to use this versus other communication-related tools (e.g., generate_feedback, daily_summary) or when not to use it. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.