magicbell_list_eventsList notification delivery events with cursor pagination. Read-only observability. Project API: GET /events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items per page (cursor pagination). | |
| ending_before | No | Cursor: return items before this id (previous page). | |
| starting_after | No | Cursor: return items after this id (next page). |
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=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only observability'. It adds context about the project API endpoint (GET /events), providing useful behavioral information beyond annotations.
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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word adds value, 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (list with pagination, read-only), the description covers essential aspects: what it lists, pagination mechanism, and read-only nature. It lacks details about the return format but is mostly complete for a filtered-list tool with good annotations.
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 schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds no extra parameter-specific details beyond what is in the schema.
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 the tool lists notification delivery events with cursor pagination, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like magicbell_get_event (single event) by emphasizing the list aspect.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for listing events with pagination, but does not clarify when to prefer this over other list tools or provide exclusion criteria.
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 targets a distinct resource and action (create, get, list, update) with no overlap. Verbs and nouns are clearly separated.
All tools follow a consistent 'magicbell_verb_noun' pattern, with verbs (create, get, list, update) and singular/plural usage appropriate to the operation.
13 tools cover core user management, broadcast/event observability, and configuration listing without being excessive or sparse for a notification platform.
Covers user CRUD (missing delete), broadcast/event/get/list, and configuration listing. While some write operations are absent, the set supports essential admin and observability tasks.