Test watch
test_watchSend a test event to a watch's webhook (once per 10 minutes).
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| secret | Yes | ||
| watch_id | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
test_watchSend a test event to a watch's webhook (once per 10 minutes).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| secret | Yes | ||
| watch_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / secret / maxLengthAdded value: +200Input schema / properties / secret / minLengthAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / watch_id / minimumAdded value: +1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "attempts": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "channel": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "detail": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "event": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "watch_id": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "event",
+ "ok",
+ "detail"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "domain": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "watch_id": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "domain",
+ "attempts"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "detail": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "domain": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "hint": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "retry_after_seconds": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "error"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond them: the rate limit of one test per 10 minutes. It still doesn't say what happens on failure or whether the webhook delivery is retried, keeping it short of a 5.
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. The parenthetical constraint is compactly attached rather than given its own sentence.
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 explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a two-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the definition leaves the meaning of both required inputs and the failure behavior of the test delivery unspecified.
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 0% and neither parameter is described in the schema, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'watch's webhook' and 'a test event' but never explains that watch_id identifies the watch or what secret is for (auth token, webhook signing secret). Two required parameters remain semantically opaque.
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 states a specific verb+resource: send a test event to a watch's webhook. An agent can immediately tell what the call does. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling test_notification, which is a plausible source of confusion, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for validating a watch's webhook configuration. The parenthetical rate limit gives a useful operating constraint, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or naming of the alternative test_notification tool.
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.