Free. Status of a paid vendor watch (created with HTTP POST /v1/watch): items, expiry, last check, last webhook delivery. Needs the webhook_secret from creation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| watch_id | Yes | Watch id, e.g. dew_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 declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the description's extra value is the auth requirement (secret from creation) and the cost note 'Free.' It doesn't cover failure modes such as an invalid/expired secret, but it is well above the annotation baseline.
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, cost and resource front-loaded, followed immediately by the prerequisite. Nothing extraneous.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing the returned fields, plus the secret prerequisite. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid secret, expired watch), which is minor for a two-parameter read tool.
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 the baseline is 3; the description adds provenance meaning — the webhook_secret is the value returned once at creation and is needed for authorization, not just an opaque string.
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 (status of a paid vendor watch) and enumerates exactly what is reported: items, expiry, last check, last webhook delivery. No sibling tool covers watches, so it is trivially distinguishable from the cve/indicator/vendor_risk family.
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?
Explains the context of use — a watch created via HTTP POST /v1/watch — and flags the prerequisite that the webhook_secret returned at creation is required. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-call conditions, but no sibling duplicates this function.
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.