Manos MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Push notification

push_notification

Send a push notification to a mobile device. For iOS, inject an APNs payload via simctl push. For Android, a valid FCM server key and token are required.

Instructions

Deliver a push notification. iOS: injects an APNs payload via simctl push. Android: unavailable (needs FCM server key + token).

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": {
      "device_id": "<device_id>",
      "app_id": "<app_id>",
      "payload": "<payload>"
    },
    "name": "push_notification"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`app_id`	Yes
`payload`	Yes	APNs payload object, e.g. {"aps":{"alert":"Hi"}}
`device_id`	Yes	Device id from list_devices (adb serial like 'emulator-5554', or an iOS simulator UDID)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the underlying mechanism (simctl push on iOS) and the Android limitation. While it doesn't address error handling or prerequisites, it adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, purpose first, platform specifics second. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. Highly efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with three required params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a clear purpose, platform constraints, and a mechanism. The schema fills in device_id and payload details, and the example in the payload schema aids understanding. The main gap is app_id, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple push tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description adds no meaning to the parameters. Schema coverage is 67% (device_id and payload have descriptions), but the app_id parameter remains bare. The description's mention of 'APNs payload' implicitly references the payload property but adds no new detail, failing to compensate for the undocumented app_id.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Deliver a push notification.' It then differentiates platform behavior (iOS via simctl push, Android unavailable), which distinguishes it from any sibling tool. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

The description explicitly states Android is unavailable, guiding the user to only use the tool for iOS simulator pushes. It doesn't name alternatives because no sibling tool provides this functionality, but the platform exclusion is clear usage guidance.

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