Watch a site x task; alert on class change.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"site": "<site>",
"task": "<task>"
},
"name": "watch_register"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | ||
| task | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions an alert on "class change," but omits persistence, permissions, watch lifetime, alert delivery, and what "class" means.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its extreme brevity is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness for a tool with two required parameters and no annotations.
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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves the agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly. Key details such as alert channel, watch duration, and the meaning of "class change" are absent.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It names "site" and "task" and hints at an "x" relation, but adds no format, meaning, or expected values for either.
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?
"Watch" is a specific verb and "site x task" names the resource pair, so the description is not a pure tautology. However, "class change" is undefined and no sibling relationship is established, leaving the actual purpose vague.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives among the sibling tools. An agent has no routing information beyond the bare name.
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.