Skip to main content
Glama

Directory Submission Retention Proof

watch_check

Run a watch check now (real fetch for the MCP Registry shape).

Tool call template

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": {
      "watch_id": "<watch_id>"
    },
    "name": "watch_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
watch_idYes
publishedNo
fetch_liveNo
tools_listNo
registry_listingNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one useful signal by saying "real fetch," implying live/external data retrieval rather than a mock, but it does not state whether the check mutates watch state, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the response contains.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical is cryptic and does little to clarify the operation.

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

Completeness1/5

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

This is a complex tool with five parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides no information about parameter meaning, side effects, return values, or operational context, making it inadequate for correctly invoking the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters, including the required watch_id and nested-object fields like published, tools_list, and registry_listing. The description does not name or explain any parameter, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a concrete verb and resource: running a watch check now. The parenthetical adds that this performs a "real fetch for the MCP Registry shape," which hints at live execution, but the core noun "watch check" is never defined and the purpose remains vague beyond the name.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus watch_create or the retention_* siblings. The word "now" weakly implies immediate execution compared with scheduled or creation workflows, but no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources