GovInbox

Manage watchlist

manage_watchlist

Not affiliated with the U.S. government, GSA, or SAM.gov. Not a U.S. government service. Watch or pass on a contract or grant opportunity. Watching saves it to your list. Passing records why, so patterns emerge over time. Changes require applicable write access. Standard dynamically registered OAuth clients are read-only; approved OAuth write clients also require your explicit consent. Follow-ups within 30 minutes after a search ride free (up to 30 per search); otherwise one accepted call counts as one use.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Optional note with the pass reason
`limit`	No
`action`	Yes	watch, pass, unwatch, unpass, list, or remove_legacy
`cursor`	No	next_cursor from the previous watchlist page
`reason`	No	Why passing (required for pass): wrong_fit, too_small, too_large, bad_timing, incumbent_locked, location, other
`notice_id`	No	The contract notice ID or grant opportunity number (required for mutations)
`legacy_key`	No	Opaque legacy_key returned for an unresolved old save; remove_legacy only
`record_type`	No	Source record type. Required when IDs overlap; widget always supplies it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedOct 18, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / action / description

Previous value: -"watch, pass, unwatch, unpass, or list"New value: +"watch, pass, unwatch, unpass, list, or remove_legacy"

addedInput schema / properties / cursor

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "maxLength": 1024,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "next_cursor from the previous watchlist page",
+  "title": "Cursor"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / legacy_key

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "maxLength": 64,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Opaque legacy_key returned for an unresolved old save; remove_legacy only",
+  "title": "Legacy Key"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / limit

Added value: +{
+  "default": 50,
+  "maximum": 100,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "title": "Limit",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / notice_id / description

Previous value: -"The notice ID (required for watch/pass/unwatch/unpass)"New value: +"The contract notice ID or grant opportunity number (required for mutations)"

addedInput schema / properties / record_type

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "enum": [
+        "contract",
+        "grant"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Source record type. Required when IDs overlap; widget always supplies it.",
+  "title": "Record Type"
+}

First observedOct 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Substantially exceeds the annotations: it discloses write-access requirements, that standard dynamically registered OAuth clients are read-only, that approved write clients still need explicit user consent, and precise metering behavior (free follow-ups within 30 minutes, up to 30 per search, otherwise one accepted call = one use). None of that is inferable from readOnlyHint=false / openWorldHint=true.

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?

Six sentences, each carrying distinct information about purpose, effect, permissions, and quota. The three leading legal disclaimers consume the front-loaded position with compliance boilerplate rather than the tool's function, which slightly weakens the opening.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers permissions, consent, and cost — the parts an agent cannot get elsewhere. Listing/pagination behavior and the remove_legacy path are left entirely to schema field descriptions, which is acceptable given 88% coverage.

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 description coverage is 88%, so action enumerations, reason values, notice_id, cursor, and legacy_key are already documented in the schema. The description adds only conceptual context (watch vs. pass semantics) and no parameter-level guidance of its own. Baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource pairing ("Watch or pass on a contract or grant opportunity") and explains what each outcome produces (saved list vs. recorded reason). It clearly is not a search/retrieval tool like search_open_notices or get_record. It never mentions the list/unwatch/unpass/remove_legacy actions that the schema exposes, so the stated scope is narrower than the tool's actual surface.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a real decision rule: watch saves to your list, pass records why so patterns emerge over time. The 30-minute free-follow-up rule implicitly steers the agent to call this soon after a search. No explicit exclusion or named alternative sibling, but the usage context is clear.

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

All GovInbox tools Inspect

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.

Resources

Need Help?