create_user_notification_ruleCreates a notification rule for a specified user, defining enabled contact types and optional delay, position, and target contact details.
Creates a new user notification rule from provided data
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| user_id | Yes | Required. ID of the user (fills `{user_id}` in /v1/users/{user_id}/notification_rules). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context such as required permissions, side effects, or validation behavior. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also contributes nothing beyond the create semantics already implied by the name.
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 a single short sentence and front-loads the verb, so it is concise. However, 'from provided data' is filler that does not earn its place, and the brevity comes at the cost of useful detail.
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?
Despite having annotations, a nested input schema, and an output schema, the description is too sparse for a creation tool. An agent gets no explanation of what a notification rule consists of, how the data payload should be formed, or how this creation operation relates to existing notification rules.
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 50%, and the description provides no additional explanation of the required user_id or nested data object. The schema documents many nested attributes, but the description does nothing to compensate for the undocumented parts or clarify how the data payload maps to a notification rule.
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, 'Creates a new user notification rule from provided data', essentially restates the tool name and title. It identifies the verb and resource, but does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as list_user_notification_rules or other create_* tools.
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?
There is no guidance on when to create a notification rule versus listing, updating, or using related user-contact tools. The phrase 'from provided data' gives no usage context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.