Count Backlog notifications with boolean flags to include or exclude already read notifications and already read resources.
Returns count of notifications
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| alreadyRead | Yes | Whether to include already read notifications | |
| resourceAlreadyRead | Yes | Whether to include notifications for already read resources |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1v0.13.1v0.11.0Input schema / properties / organizationAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional organization name. Use list_organizations to inspect available organizations.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond the purpose statement — it does not say what the count represents (total vs unread vs filtered), nor how the two boolean flags change the result, nor the response shape.
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 no waste. It is appropriately sized, though the terseness leaves the description thin rather than dense with useful information.
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 two-parameter counting tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify what is being counted (unread notifications by default, presumably) and what happens with the boolean filters. Those gaps mean an agent can invoke it but may misinterpret the returned number.
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 both required booleans are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional meaning about how alreadyRead and resourceAlreadyRead interact to shape the count.
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 ('Returns count of notifications'), which is clear enough to distinguish a counting operation from a listing operation. However, it never contrasts with get_notifications or reset_unread_notification_count, so the sibling distinction is left implicit.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus get_notifications (which presumably returns the notifications themselves) or reset_unread_notification_count. The agent must infer which of the three notification tools produces a count.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.