Send a phone push notification to alert a user via TMGR agent notifications, including title, body, optional link, and priority.
Send a phone push notification to the user via TMGR agent notifications.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | Notification body | |
| link | No | Absolute http(s) URL to open on tap | |
| title | Yes | Notification title | |
| priority | No | Priority, default normal |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names the delivery channel ('via TMGR agent notifications') but does not say whether delivery is immediate or queued, whether it can fail silently, what happens with the optional link, or whether the recipient must be enrolled/authorized.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the action and channel front-loaded. 'TMGR agent' is unexplained internal jargon, which is a minor blemish but not padding.
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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the schema fully covers inputs, so the description only needs to cover behavior. It leaves delivery semantics, failure modes, and the alarm-vs-notification distinction unexplained, making it minimally adequate rather than complete.
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 100%, so all four parameters (title, body, link, priority) are already documented in the schema with constraints and an enum. The description adds only the implicit notion of a phone device, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb (send) and resource (phone push notification) directed at the user, which is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings alarm and alarm_status, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between a one-off push and a scheduled alarm.
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 indication of when to reach for notify_user versus alarm or alarm_status, nor any stated preconditions or exclusions. The agent gets a capability statement but no selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.