Retrieve a specific notification's details from Prowlarr by supplying its unique ID.
Read Notification.
GET /api/v1/notification/{id}
Args: id: Path parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the HTTP GET method and path parameter, which is consistent with those hints but does not disclose error behavior such as 404s or authentication requirements. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, this is adequate.
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?
The description is three short lines with no filler. The action and endpoint are front-loaded, and every sentence contributes necessary 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 simple single-ID read with full annotations and an output schema, the description provides the endpoint and parameter location. It lacks guidance on when to choose this over sibling list/get tools and does not mention error cases, but the low complexity and strong annotations keep it at an adequate level.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It identifies id as a path parameter, which is useful transport information, but it adds little semantic meaning beyond the parameter name and the tool name. For a single self-explanatory id, this is minimally sufficient.
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?
The description clearly states the operation ('Read') and resource ('Notification') and includes the exact GET path with {id}, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It does not explicitly contrast with list_notification or other get_*_by_id siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus list_notification or the many other get-by-id tools. The intended use is implied by the name and path but never stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.