watch_set
Idempotent
A standing order: watch for listings by words, kind or category; action notify (note hits), buy...
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| kind | No | ||
| times | No | ||
| action | No | ||
| remove | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| currency | No | ||
| max_price | No |
ce-net
by com.ce-net
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Changed1 schema field changed
- changed
Input schema / properties / kind / enumPrevious value: -[ - "secondhand", - "new", - "b2b_lot", - "factory_capacity", - "supplier_part", - "compute" -]New value: +[ + "secondhand", + "new", + "b2b_lot", + "factory_capacity", + "supplier_part", + "compute", + "digital" +]
- Added
- Removed
- Added
- Removed
- Added
- Removed
- Added
- Removed
- Added
TDQS
C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the safety/write profile is partly covered. The description hints at persistence ('standing order') and an auto-'buy' action, but the truncation and the unexplained consequences of 'buy'/'bid' leave real behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is not over-long, but it is under-specified and literally truncated mid-sentence ('buy...'), so key information is missing rather than economically compressed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation demands a richer description than this fragment provides; the semantics of 'remove', 'times', and price/currency limits are absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters. The description only gestures at 'words' (q), 'kind', 'category', and the 'notify/buy' action; it says nothing about 'times', 'remove', 'currency', or 'max_price'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a resource ('listings') and a mechanism ('standing order ... watch for listings by words, kind or category'), which is more specific than a tautology. But it is a truncated fragment ending in 'buy...' and never cleanly states what the tool creates or how it differs from listing_search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use watch_set versus one-off listing_search, no mention that the 'remove' parameter is how you cancel a standing order, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer all usage conditions from the fragments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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.