postsider_get_notificationsList recent organization notifications, including publish failures and channels needing reconnection, to resolve publishing issues.
List recent notifications for the organization (e.g. publish failures, channels needing reconnection).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful substance by enumerating what notifications contain, but says nothing about recency window, result limits, read/unread state, or whether notifications are consumed on read.
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 front-loaded sentence with the core purpose first and examples in parentheses. No filler, no redundancy, nothing that fails to earn 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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema and no required inputs, the description supplies the purpose plus representative content. It is nearly complete; only the recency/volume semantics of "recent" are left unspecified.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing parametric for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent parameters or imply filtering options that do not exist.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("List recent notifications for the organization") and grounds it with concrete examples (publish failures, channels needing reconnection). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings that may also surface alerts (get_agency_overview, get_customer_report), so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by "recent notifications" and the examples suggest it is the alert/status surface, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the numerous sibling tools. An agent can infer intent but gets no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.