BugSecure MCP

List my notifications

list_notifications

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the signed-in user's BugSecure notifications, newest first, covering report status changes, adjudications, appeals, certificates, and badges. Read-only: does not mark as read.

Instructions

The signed-in user’s BugSecure notifications, newest first (report status changes, adjudications, appeals, certificates, badges…). Read-only: this does not mark them as read.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Results per page (1–50).
`offset`	No	Results to skip.
`unreadOnly`	No	Only notifications not yet read.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`nextOffset`	No	Next page’s `offset`; null on the last page.
`notifications`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.2.0Sep 26, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / notifications / items / properties / type / description

Added value: +"The kind of notification: one of APPEAL_DECIDED, APPEAL_RAISED, BADGE_EARNED, CERTIFICATE_ISSUED, CERTIFICATE_OVERDUE, INBOUND_EMAIL_RECEIVED, KYC_STATUS_CHANGED, LEVEL_UP, NEW_REPORT_RECEIVED, ORGANIZATION_INVITATION, PROGRAM_PUBLISHED, REPORT_ADJUDICATED, REPORT_STATUS_CHANGED, SECURITY_ALERT, SETTLEMENT_ATTESTED, SETTLEMENT_CONFIRMED, SETTLEMENT_DISPUTED, SUBSCRIPTION_ACTIVATED, USER_PENDING_APPROVAL, or a kind added since (treat an unknown one like a generic notification)."

removedOutput schema / properties / notifications / items / properties / type / enum

Removed value: -[
-  "APPEAL_DECIDED",
-  "APPEAL_RAISED",
-  "BADGE_EARNED",
-  "CERTIFICATE_ISSUED",
-  "CERTIFICATE_OVERDUE",
-  "INBOUND_EMAIL_RECEIVED",
-  "KYC_STATUS_CHANGED",
-  "LEVEL_UP",
-  "NEW_REPORT_RECEIVED",
-  "PROGRAM_PUBLISHED",
-  "REPORT_ADJUDICATED",
-  "REPORT_STATUS_CHANGED",
-  "SECURITY_ALERT",
-  "SETTLEMENT_ATTESTED",
-  "SETTLEMENT_DISPUTED",
-  "SUBSCRIPTION_ACTIVATED",
-  "USER_PENDING_APPROVAL"
-]

changedOutput schema / properties / notifications / items / properties / type / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

First observedv0.1.0Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: the 'newest first' ordering and the explicit statement that it does not mark notifications as read. This is useful because the sibling mark_notifications_read exists, and clarifying the non-mutating behavior helps an agent avoid unintended side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single, tightly written sentence. The core purpose and scope are front-loaded, followed by a parenthetical list of example notification types and a clarifying read-only statement. There is zero redundancy and every phrase earns its place. The structure is ideal for quick parsing.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool is simple with three optional, well-documented parameters. The description covers the essential behavioral context (ordering, read-only, content types). An output schema exists, so return-value details are handled there. Nothing an agent needs to correctly select and invoke this tool is missing, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema provides 100% coverage: limit, offset, and unreadOnly each have clear descriptions with defaults and constraints. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already states. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 applies; the description doesn't enhance or clarify any parameter behavior.

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 the verb (list), the resource (the signed-in user's BugSecure notifications), and the ordering (newest first). It also enumerates the content types, which gives a precise picture of what the tool returns. Though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling, the phrase 'does not mark them as read' differentiates it from mark_notifications_read, and the overall purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear usage context by framing the operation as read-only and explicitly stating it does not mark notifications as read. This implicitly tells an agent that if marking-as-read is needed, a different tool (mark_notifications_read) should be chosen. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or state conditions like 'use this to fetch notifications before marking them read', so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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