AISeeWhy

watch_site

Idempotent

Add a URL to the account's scheduled monitoring (freq: daily or weekly). The owner gets an email when a check finds a new P1 problem or the score drops by 10 or more. Needs an API key; adding the same URL again only changes the frequency.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "watch_site"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Page to monitor: a full URL or a bare domain such as example.com.
`freq`	No	How often to check the page: daily or weekly (default).	weekly

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 12, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / freq / description

Added value: +"How often to check the page: daily or weekly (default)."

addedInput schema / properties / url / description

Added value: +"Page to monitor: a full URL or a bare domain such as example.com."

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context beyond that: the owner gets emailed only on a new P1 problem or a score drop of 10+, and a repeated URL is an upsert rather than a duplicate, which directly clarifies the idempotentHint. Rate limits and quota or billing effects are not covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, with the core action and the frequency constraint front-loaded, then the alerting rule, then the auth/upsert caveats. Every sentence carries information that is not already in the schema or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers auth, alerting thresholds, and idempotency well. It leaves minor gaps around duplicate detection normalization, since the schema says a bare domain is accepted, and around any rate or quota limits.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters, including the daily/weekly enum values and the weekly default, are already documented in the schema. The description's only added meaning is the upsert semantics of the url parameter, which the schema does not state; that is useful but limited, so it stays at the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource: add a URL to the account's scheduled monitoring. It is clear about the scope (account-level watchlist) even though it never names a sibling such as list_watched_sites as an alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives useful usage context implicitly, telling the agent that re-adding an existing URL is not an error but a frequency change, and that an API key is required. It never says when to prefer this tool over audit_url, or when not to watch a site at all.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All AISeeWhy tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.