Fetch paginated notifications for the authenticated user, optionally filtered by seen status, to review alerts and manage updates.
List notifications for the authenticated user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default: 1) | |
| seen | No | Filter by seen status | |
| limit | No | Notifications per page (default: 10) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the operation is a read-style list scoped to the authenticated user, and does not claim any destructive behavior. However, it does not disclose details like whether listin notifications alters seen status, return structure, or any side effects.
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 clear sentence with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 simple listtool with three fully documented optional parameters and no required fields, the description provides the essential resource and scope. It lacks some optional context like default ordering or return shape, but the schema and the nature of the operation make the tool adequately callable.
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?
The input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, including defaults. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the auth scope, so it meets the baseline of 3 without exceeding it.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('notifications') scoped to the authenticated user. This distinguishes it from notification-related siblings like baasix_send_notification and baasix_ark_notification_seen, which involve different actions.
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?
The phrase 'List notifications for the authenticated user' implies its basic use case, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or context like pagination behavior. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.