Lists notifications for the current user identified by the API key, with optional page and per-page controls for paging results.
List notifications for the current user (determined by API key's associated user).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 1) | |
| per_page | No | Results per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the user scope is derived from the API key rather than a parameter, but it says nothing about ordering, read/unread state, result limits, or that the operation is non-mutating beyond the implicit 'List' verb.
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 the scope constraint front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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 simple, parameter-light read tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually (notifications for the authenticated user). With no output schema, a note on what a notification record contains would be nice but is not essential.
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 parameters (page, per_page) are documented inline, so the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing about pagination semantics or defaults, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.
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 notifications') and adds the scope qualifier that results are scoped to the API key's associated user. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling conduyt_create_notification by the list verb, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.
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 only implied by the verb and the 'current user' scoping note. There is no statement of when to call this versus conduyt_create_notification (the only closely related sibling) or any other notification-related path, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.