View durable website change notifications without advancing the review cursor. Filter by status and limit results to inspect pending alerts before acknowledging them.
List durable notifications without advancing the review cursor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | new |
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. It usefully discloses that the review cursor is not advanced, which is a key non-mutating behavior. However, it omits other relevant traits such as read-only safety, idempotency, and how defaults/status filtering affect results.
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?
A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the action and the key behavioral constraint. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.
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?
For a tool with two undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and one behavioral trait but omits parameter semantics and return value shape, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.
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 input schema has two parameters (limit, status) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention either parameter. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's names and defaults, leaving the agent to infer semantics for 'status' and 'limit'.
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 (List) and resource (durable notifications), and the clause 'without advancing the review cursor' distinguishes it from the sibling mark_notifications_reviewed. It is clear without opening the schema, though 'durable' is slightly underspecified.
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?
It implies when to use this tool (when you want to view notifications without marking them reviewed), but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use. The contrast with the sibling is implicit rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.