Send high-priority alerts to AWTRIX displays instantly, with customizable text, colors, icons, sounds, and display duration.
Push an instant, high-priority notification to the AWTRIX display.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hold | No | ||
| icon | No | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| color | No | ||
| rtttl | No | ||
| sound | No | ||
| stack | No | ||
| wakeup | No | ||
| duration | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate open-world behavior and non-idempotency, and the description adds that the notification is pushed instantly with high priority. It does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or stacking/replacement behavior, but it does not contradict the annotations either.
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 front-loaded sentence that states the essential action and destination with no filler. Every word earns its place.
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 core call is clear, but the description is minimal for a tool with 9 parameters and several sibling tools. It does not explain optional parameter relationships, duplicate-notification behavior, or when to prefer test_render; the presence of an output schema and annotations softens but does not fill these gaps.
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 0%, and the description provides no prose about any of the 9 parameters. The schema's names and defaults are somewhat informative, but the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap, such as what 'text' should contain or how icon/color/sound values are formatted.
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 clearly names the action ('Push'), the object ('notification'), and the destination ('AWTRIX display'), and adds the distinguishing 'instant, high-priority' quality. This makes it easy to separate from sibling tools that manage apps, settings, or device state.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as awtrix_test_render or awtrix_upsert_app. The phrase 'instant, high-priority' weakly implies a use case, but the agent has to infer the right context from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.