Displays a toast notification in the OpenCode terminal user interface, with customizable title, message, variant, and target directory.
Show a toast notification in the TUI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| variant | No | ||
| directory | No | Project directory to target. Optional; defaults to the server default project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the call blocks, whether it is fire-and-forget, whether it requires a running TUI session, or what happens if no UI is attached — all relevant for a UI-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 filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing of rich content.
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 one-required-parameter notification tool this is minimally viable, but with no annotations and 3 of 4 parameters undocumented, an agent lacks enough context on behavior and parameter effects to invoke it confidently.
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 coverage is only 25% (only 'directory' is documented), so the description should compensate but adds nothing about 'title', 'message', or 'variant'. The enum values for 'variant' are self-describing in the schema, but their effect on presentation is unexplained.
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 (show), resource (toast notification) and scope (TUI), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It is not confused with any sibling, since no other tool displays notifications, though it does not explicitly name a differentiating alternative.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternative exists for surfacing information to the user. It only restates the action without any contextual trigger.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.