Send targeted notifications to selected users by specifying recipient IDs, title, and message. Deliver important updates directly to your audience.
Send a notification to specified users
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Notification type | info |
| title | Yes | Notification title | |
| message | Yes | Notification message | |
| recipients | Yes | Array of user IDs to send notification to |
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 behavioral burden. It merely states the action and does not disclose whether notifications are persisted, whether delivery is synchronous, what side effects occur, or any permission requirements.
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 concise sentence with no filler. It is easy to parse, though it sacrifices useful context for brevity.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and related sibling tools in the notification domain, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what happens after sending, how to verify delivery, or how this differs from sending invites/magic links.
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 the parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3.
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 ('Send') and resource ('notification') and names the recipients. It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like baasix_send_invite or baasix_send_magic_link; the word 'notification' provides partial distinction.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as baasix_send_invite, baasix_send_magic_link, or baasix_list_notifications. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.