List this API key's recall watch patterns. Requires an API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| patterns | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the authentication requirement ('Requires an API key') and the scoping behavior ('this API key's'), which is useful contextual information beyond the annotations. Return format is handled by the output schema, so no further disclosure is needed.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core operation and scope are front-loaded, and the authentication prerequisite is stated separately without 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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent list operation with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is complete. It states what is listed, the scope, and the prerequisite for calling it.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100% (an empty object), so there are no parameters to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing about parameter meaning is missing.
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?
The description 'List this API key's recall watch patterns' uses a specific verb (List), a clear resource (recall watch patterns), and an explicit scope (this API key's). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like add_watch_pattern and remove_watch_pattern, which describe different operations on the same resource.
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 description communicates the invocation context: the tool is scoped to the caller's API key and requires an API key to be available. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the resource and action are clear enough that an agent can infer when to select this tool over add/remove watch pattern siblings or list_recall_notifications.
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.
Most tools target a distinct action and resource, and descriptions clarify edge cases such as check_tracked_products vs. list_recall_notifications. The four recall-search tools overlap somewhat around UPC and identifier lookup, but their input modes and stated behaviors are mostly separable.
Tool names mostly follow a clear verb_noun pattern with consistent list/add/remove/search verbs. Minor deviations such as lookup_product, signup, and search_recalls_by_identifier vs. search_product_recalls_* prevent a perfect score.
With 19 tools, the server is on the heavy side and some search variants could potentially be consolidated. Still, each tool covers a distinct part of account management, inventory, watch patterns, notifications, or recall search, so the count is not excessive.
The core recall-tracking workflow is well covered: signup, API key management, inventory, watch patterns, checks, notifications, and multiple recall search routes all exist. Minor gaps include no update operation for inventory or watch patterns and no mark-all-notifications-read action.