Freelance MCP Server

send_notification

Sends notifications to email, Slack, Discord, console, or webhook with a title and message, plus optional data, so freelance workflow updates reach the right channel.

Instructions

Send notification through specified channel

Args:
    channel: Notification channel (email, slack, discord, console, webhook)
    title: Notification title
    message: Notification message
    data: Optional additional data

Returns:
    Send status

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "channel": "<channel>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "send_notification"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`title`	Yes
`channel`	Yes
`message`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says it returns send status but omits important behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, external delivery implications, or channel-specific behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and followed by a compact Args/Returns structure. Every line serves a purpose and there is no filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be fully explained. However, for a send operation with no annotations, the description leaves behavioral context (auth, side effects, failure modes) incomplete even for a simple notification tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents all four parameters and notably lists valid channel values (email, slack, discord, console, webhook) that the schema does not enumerate. The 'data' parameter remains vague as 'Optional additional data'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Send notification through specified channel.' The purpose is immediately clear. However, it does not differentiate from siblings, though no sibling tool appears to overlap in function.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or channel selection criteria. The implied usage is sending a notification, but there are no explicit conditions or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server