list_user_notification_rulesRetrieves notification rules for a specified Rootly user, enabling review of alert and incident notification settings.
List user notification rules
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | ||
| include | No | ||
| user_id | Yes | Required. ID of the user (fills `{user_id}` in /v1/users/{user_id}/notification_rules). | |
| page_size | No | ||
| page_number | No |
| 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=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description adds nothing beyond that — no pagination behavior, no default sort, no note that results are confined to the given user.
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?
It is certainly short and front-loaded, but the brevity comes from omission rather than efficiency — the single phrase is a restatement of the name, not a distilled instruction.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with five parameters at 20% coverage and no usage or behavioral context, the definition is not sufficient for an agent to call this tool confidently with sort/include/pagination options.
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 coverage is only 20%: user_id is documented, but sort, include, page_size and page_number have no descriptions anywhere. The description does not compensate at all, leaving four parameters semantically opaque to the agent.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternative to pick. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read counterpart to create_user_notification_rule, and nothing clarifies whether it is scoped per-user or global.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.