Fetch details about a specific kweenkl channel or notification by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the channel or notification to fetch | |
| type | Yes | Type of resource to fetch: 'channel' or 'notification' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, so it does not enhance transparency.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
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 two-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on return format or error conditions. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'details' entails.
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 100% with clear descriptions for both 'id' and 'type'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting 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 clearly states it fetches details of a specific channel or notification by ID, using an action verb and specific resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search', though the ID-based retrieval is distinct.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the function without context on prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: fetch retrieves by ID, kweenkl sends notifications, login and login_check handle auth, status checks connectivity, and search queries history. No ambiguity.
Tools mix generic verbs like 'fetch' and 'search' with the 'kweenkl_' prefix for auth and status tools, and 'kweenkl' as a standalone verb tool. This is somewhat inconsistent but still readable.
6 tools is well-scoped for a notification service. Each tool serves a needed function without bloat.
Lacks channel management tools (create, update, delete) and a listing tool beyond search. Users cannot fully manage the lifecycle of channels or notifications.
