list_watchesList contractors monitored for your account, with the last stored status and recent change events. Reads only this server's database. Requires sign-in (OAuth) or an almmity API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description reinforces them with "Reads only this server's database" while adding genuinely new context: the authentication requirement (OAuth or almmity API key). It does not discuss volume limits or empty-list behavior, which keeps it below 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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then data-scope, then auth. Every sentence adds information that is not in the schema or annotations.
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?
With an output schema present and no input parameters, the description only needs to cover access and scope, which it does. The only omission is any note on result size or ordering, a minor gap given the output schema carries the shape.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids restating a schema that is empty.
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 and resource ("List contractors monitored for your account") and adds the payload scope (last stored status plus recent change events). The verb alone separates it from add_watch/remove_watch, but it never names them explicitly.
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 implied by the verb (retrieve the watch list) but there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not rules and no routing to siblings such as add_watch or remove_watch for follow-up actions. An agent must infer that this is the read counterpart to those tools.
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.