openagentemail

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Verify Notification Delivery

notify_verify

Test server-side notification delivery by sending a harmless check and polling the result; requires human-alert permission.

Instructions

Send a harmless server-side notification check and poll it back. Requires the same human-alert permission as notify_user.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "notify_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.10.0Oct 1, 2026
- addedInput schema / $schema
```
Added value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
```
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
Addedv0.6.0Sep 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive; the description adds that the check is harmless, server-side, and polled back, plus a permission prerequisite. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't explain what the poll returns or how long it waits.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the prerequisite. No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the permission requirement is covered. The one gap is the missing contrast with the sibling notify_check, which leaves a plausible selection ambiguity.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless schema applies.

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 pair (send a check, poll it back) and the resource (server-side notification check), so the mechanism is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling notify_check, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implies the use case (verifying notification delivery) and names a prerequisite (same human-alert permission as notify_user), which is real guidance. It gives no explicit when-not condition and does not say how it differs from notify_check or notify_user.

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