Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Interactive MCP

Interactive MCP

by ttommyth
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

message_complete_notification

Notify users when a response or task is complete. Use this tool to signal completion at the end of every message, enabling cross-platform OS notifications.

Instructions

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": {
      "projectName": "<projectName>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "message_complete_notification"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesNotification body
projectNameYesNotification title

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Removedv1.6.0
  2. Addedv1.10.0
  3. Removedv1.10.1
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries behavioral info. It specifies cross-platform OS notifications and best practices like consistent projectName usage. Lacks details on potential side effects, but for a simple notification tool this is sufficient.

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 into sections (description, notes, when to use, features, best practices, parameters, examples). It is detailed but each section adds necessary value; no redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple tool with 2 string parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete: it explains purpose, usage, parameters, examples, and best practices. No gaps remain.

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?

Schema has 100% coverage with concise descriptions. The description adds value by explaining parameter use (title vs body) and providing examples, exceeding the baseline of 3.

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 the tool notifies when a response completes and must be used exactly once per message. It distinguishes itself from sibling chat tools by focusing on signaling completion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit 'whenToUseThisTool' and 'importantNotes' provide comprehensive guidance: use at end of query, after tool sequences, or multi-step processes. The mandatory once-per-message rule is emphasized.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools