contest-mcp

notifications

Retrieve buffered notifications about field updates, enter/calltab, and duplicate checks from N3FJP logging software. Enable, disable, or drain the event buffer as needed.

Instructions

Opt-in push events from N3FJP (field updates, enter/calltab, dupes).

operations:

enable: turn on all-field-update notifications.
disable: turn them off.
drain: return and clear the buffered notification blocks received so far.

MCP is request/response, so events are buffered and you pull them with drain rather than receiving a live stream.

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": {
      "operation": "<operation>"
    },
    "name": "notifications"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`operation`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It reveals the buffering mechanism and that events aren't streamed in real-time. Missing details on authentication, rate limits, or failure modes, but covers key limitations.

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?

The description is well-structured with a brief statement followed by a bullet-like list of operations. It is reasonably concise, though the list could be more compact.

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?

Given a simple schema with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior including buffering and operation semantics. Some edge cases (e.g., state after enable) are omitted, but overall complete for a notification management tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The single 'operation' parameter has 0% schema coverage, so the description must fully explain its meaning. It does so by listing the three valid values (enable, disable, drain) and their effects, adding significant value beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states it manages 'Opt-in push events from N3FJP' with three distinct operations (enable, disable, drain). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like status or query.

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?

It explains when to use each operation and explicitly addresses the request/response buffering limitation, guiding the agent to use drain. However, no explicit when-not or alternatives to other tools are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server