get_watchlistReturn one watchlist with its resolved company members. Free.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "get_watchlist"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Watchlist id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: 'resolved company members' discloses that nested membership data is expanded in the response, and 'Free' discloses that the call consumes no quota/credits — neither is available in the structured fields.
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?
Two terse sentences, no filler, with the core action and its output scope front-loaded before the cost note. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this is nearly complete: it says what comes back at a high level and that it's free. It stops short of describing the member object shape or behavior on an invalid/unknown id, which is the only notable gap.
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% with a single fully-described UUID parameter, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing about the id (e.g., where to obtain it from list_watchlists), so this is baseline 3.
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 ('Return one watchlist') and adds meaningful scope detail ('with its resolved company members'), which tells the agent the members are expanded rather than raw IDs. It distinguishes itself implicitly from list_watchlists by saying 'one', but never names the 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?
The singular 'one watchlist' plus the required id implies this is the fetch-by-id path versus list_watchlists, and 'Free' signals the call has no cost barrier. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is named, leaving routing to inference.
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.