List your watches, newest first, 10 per page. Read-only.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list-watches"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 1-50, default 10 | |
| cursor | No | next_cursor from the previous page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does supply the safety profile ('Read-only') and result ordering ('newest first, 10 per page'). It does not say what a watch record contains, whether the list is scoped to the authenticated user, or how the end of the list is signalled.
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 fragments, zero filler, and the core operation is front-loaded ahead of the ordering and safety notes. The terseness borders on under-specification rather than waste.
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?
For a two-optional-parameter list tool this covers operation, ordering, page size, and read-only safety. With no output schema, the description could have sketched the returned watch shape or pagination termination, which it omits.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description adds the default page size and sort order that give 'limit' and page sequencing practical meaning. It says nothing about the cursor beyond what the schema already documents.
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 your watches') plus ordering ('newest first') and page size, which is enough to distinguish it from get-watch, create-watch, and delete-watch by implication. It stops short of naming or contrasting any sibling 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 only implied by the verb 'List' and the absence of any filter arguments. There is no statement of when to prefer get-watch for a single watch or how to page through beyond the schema's cursor field, so the agent must infer the routing.
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.