Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

notifications_get_one

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific notification by its ID to view its details.

Instructions

Get notification by ID GET /notifications/{id}

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "notifications_get_one"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesNotification entry ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the raw HTTP route, which restates the operation rather than disclosing anything new — nothing about not-found behavior, auth requirements, or what a notification record contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The 'GET /notifications/{id}' line is essentially redundant with the sentence above it and contributes little, but the definition wastes no further space.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the essentials are present, and there is no output schema to describe. Still, an agent gets no hint about the returned notification's shape or error behavior when the ID does not exist.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% ('Notification entry ID'), so the single parameter is already documented. The description's 'by ID' phrasing adds no format, type, or sourcing detail beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Get notification by ID') that immediately distinguishes a single-record fetch from the sibling notifications_get_list. It does not explicitly name the list alternative, but the singular/ID framing is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Implicitly clear: use this when you have a notification ID and want one entry, versus notifications_get_list for a collection. No explicit exclusions, no mention of mark-as-read siblings, and no note on what to do if the ID is unknown.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools