Retrieve unread meshbook notifications including mentions, invites, and assignments. Use it to review pending alerts and stay current on team activity.
List your unread meshbook notifications (mentions, invites, assignments, …).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does 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 does not say whether listing unread notifications marks them as read, whether results are paginated or capped, or whether any auth scope is required — all material for a notification tool.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the resource and the key filter (unread) appear immediately.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations and no guidance, the description leaves open the side-effect question (does reading clear unread status?) and any result limits, which a zero-param list tool should ideally address.
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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline 4 case. Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing further for the description to clarify about inputs.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (unread meshbook notifications) and enumerates example types (mentions, invites, assignments), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. No sibling tool covers notifications, so differentiation is not really needed, but there is no explicit contrast with any list_* sibling.
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 word 'unread' implies a use case, but the description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite context, and no alternatives. There is no other notification tool to route against, yet nothing tells the agent when this call is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.