Updates organization notification settings, including certificate expiration alert timing, to control when alerts are sent before, on, or after expiration.
Updates notification settings. PUT /cloudapi/1.0.0/orgNotificationSettings
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Notification settings for a given org. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world mutation, so the description's main behavioral contribution is just the PUT endpoint. It does not disclose whether the update replaces the entire org notification configuration, what permissions are required, or what happens to omitted settings.
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 extremely short and front-loads the action before the endpoint. There is no filler or redundant explanation, though the terseness leaves behavioral and usage gaps for other dimensions.
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?
The schema fully describes the body structure and annotations cover the safety profile, so an agent can invoke the tool. However, the description does not clarify org-level scope, replacement semantics, or the relationship to provider_get_notification_settings and other settings-update tools.
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%, and the nested body fields are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the operation name, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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: it updates notification settings, and the included PUT path identifies the org notification settings endpoint. It is clear enough to understand the operation, but it does not distinguish it from nearby settings-related siblings such as provider_update_org_settings or provider_get_notification_settings.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or what prerequisites apply. The description only identifies the operation and endpoint, leaving usage decisions entirely to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.