Retrieve a list of Backlog notifications, filtered by minimum or maximum notification ID and sorted in ascending or descending order, to review recent project activity.
Returns list of notifications
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of notifications to retrieve | |
| maxId | No | Maximum notification ID | |
| minId | No | Minimum notification ID | |
| order | No | Sort order |
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"
+}v1.0.0Input schema / properties / alreadyReadRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Whether to include already read notifications",
- "type": "boolean"
-}Input schema / properties / resourceAlreadyReadRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Whether to include notifications for already read resources",
- "type": "boolean"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description adds nothing beyond that — no pagination behavior, no default ordering, no note on whether results are capped by count.
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 short sentence with no filler, so it is not bloated. However, its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency — there is no front-loaded scope or key constraint.
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?
With four optional ID/order parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify what a notification record contains, how ordering interacts with count, and whether ID ranges are inclusive. None of this is present, leaving the agent to guess at retrieval semantics.
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%, so all four parameters (count, maxId, minId, order) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning such as whether minId/maxId are inclusive or what the default sort order is; baseline 3 applies.
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?
"Returns list of notifications" essentially restates the tool name (get_notifications) with the addition of the word "list". It does not distinguish this from count_notifications or mark_notification_as_read, nor does it describe scope, filtering, or ordering behavior.
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 count_notifications or mark_notification_as_read, and no mention of prerequisites such as authentication or unread state. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.