Free. Status of a paid email setup watch (created with POST /v1/watch): items, expiry, last check, last webhook delivery and current SPF/DMARC/DKIM/MX state. Needs the webhook_secret from creation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| watch_id | Yes | Watch id, e.g. msw_abcdefghijklmnop | |
| webhook_secret | Yes | The webhook_secret returned once when the watch was created (required to read status) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / webhook_secretAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The webhook_secret returned once when the watch was created (required to read status)",
+ "maxLength": 200,
+ "minLength": 8,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "watch_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "watch_id",
+ "webhook_secret"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that the call is free and that authentication requires the webhook_secret issued once at creation. It also lists the returned state fields, which matters since no output schema exists.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the cost note followed immediately by what the call returns and what it requires. No filler or redundancy.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned status fields, and it covers the auth prerequisite. Minor gaps remain, such as the shape of the 'items' collection and whether the state checks are live or cached.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the msw_ pattern and the webhook_secret provenance. The description's mention of the webhook_secret largely restates the schema and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it.
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 resource and operation: retrieves the status of an email setup watch, and enumerates exactly which fields come back (items, expiry, last check, last webhook delivery, SPF/DMARC/DKIM/MX state). It is clearly not one of the sibling email-security checkers, though it doesn't explicitly name any alternative to distinguish itself from.
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 implied rather than spelled out: the agent learns the watch was created with POST /v1/watch and that the webhook_secret from creation is needed. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not statement or reference to a sibling tool for comparison.
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.