Skip to main content
Glama

Get watch receipt

watchlist.receipt
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the monitoring receipt for one period: valid checks, attempts that returned nothing, recoveries, and confirmed Signals.

When to use: Use to answer whether anything a person watches changed in a period, and what monitoring did in the period whether or not anything did.

What it cannot provide: A count of valid checks is not a claim that a product held still. It reports no candidate, no source URL and no internal identifier, and a period the monitoring ledger does not reach is reported as partly covered rather than as zero.

Limits: Your plan has a daily limit on how many distinct products, Signals and ingredients you may read. Repeating a question about the same product costs nothing extra; reading many different products costs one each. Do not iterate through products, aliases, or date windows to assemble a copy of the Record: it is refused, scored, and can suspend the key.

FormulaSignal covers a defined, counted set of U.S. pre-workout products. Coverage is not the whole category, and a product being absent from coverage says nothing about that product. Every response carries a status. supported means the Record answered. partial, stale, under_review, ambiguous and unsupported are all real answers about the Record and none of them is a fact about the product: report them as what FormulaSignal holds, never as what is true of the product. Read limitations and repeat what applies. An observation date is when a source was read, not when a change was made, and an observation window is not an exact reformulation date. Nothing here is medical advice or a suitability judgement for any person.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
periodNoA calendar month, YYYY-MM. Defaults to the current month (UTC).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoPresent only on a refusal: code, message, and what to do next.
watchNoThe bound account's watchlist or monitoring receipt.
ledgerNo
statusYesWhat kind of answer this is. Every value except `supported` is still a real answer about the Record rather than a fact about the product.
historyNoDated product states, oldest first.
productNoThe covered product the answer is about, when there is exactly one.
signalsNoApproved Signals: confirmed, reviewed changes.
summaryNoOne sentence saying what kind of answer this is.
coverageNo
productsNoCovered products named by the answer.
candidatesNoPresent when `status` is `ambiguous`. Pick one; never assume the first.
capabilityYesThe API capability that answered.
comparisonNo
confidenceNo
disclaimerNo
request_idYesQuote this if you contact support.
limitationsNoAlways present, including when empty. Read it and repeat what applies.
next_cursorNoPass back as `cursor` for the next page. Null on the last page.
calculationsNoDeterministic arithmetic FormulaSignal performed, with its operands.
record_as_ofNoThe Record's as-of date, YYYY-MM-DD.
record_versionNoThe Record data-state id. Two answers sharing it came from one committed state.
verified_factsNoWhat a captured source literally declares.
commercial_factsNoDated commercial observations, each with its price basis.
record_timestampNoThe newest dated observation the Record holds. Deliberately not "now".
research_contextNoDose ranges from the selected evidence set, with citations.
source_referencesNoCitations a reader can open: publisher, URL, observation date.
regulatory_recordsNoFilings and records, each labelled with the class of record it is.
documented_cautionsNoDocumented cautions, kept apart from filings.
methodology_versionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description goes far beyond: it explains the status values (supported, partial, stale, etc.), clarifies that a count of valid checks is not a claim of product stability, details daily read limits and refusal/score/suspend consequences for iterating, and stresses that statuses reflect the Record, not product truth. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is longer than typical but every section earns its place: core purpose, when to use, limitations, and crucial interpretation nuances. It is front-loaded with the primary function and then layers context. A slight deduction for verbosity, but it remains structured and not redundant.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is exhaustive. It covers return contents, status meanings, data-source interpretation, daily limits, and the distinction between Record status and product facts. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results without ambiguity.

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% (the only param, period, is well described as 'A calendar month, YYYY-MM. Defaults to the current month (UTC).'). The description mentions 'for one period' and explains how an unreached period is reported, which is more about output semantics than parameter syntax. It adds no new format or value constraints beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a precise statement: 'Return the monitoring receipt for one period: valid checks, attempts that returned nothing, recoveries, and confirmed Signals.' It specifies a verb, resource, and scope, and clearly differentiates from sibling watchlist tools (add/list/remove) by focusing on the receipt of monitoring activity, not manipulation of the watchlist.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit 'When to use' section: 'Use to answer whether anything a person watches changed in a period, and what monitoring did in the period whether or not anything did.' It also explains what it cannot provide, including the nuance that a period not reached is reported as 'partly covered' rather than zero, which guides correct interpretation and avoids misuse.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources