Directory Submission Retention Proof

watch_create

Create a retention watch on an escrow (subscription required).

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": {
      "escrow_id": "<escrow_id>"
    },
    "name": "watch_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`grant`	No
`cadence_s`	No
`directory`	No
`escrow_id`	Yes
`server_name`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

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 behavioral burden. It discloses that a subscription is required, but it does not explain what creating a watch does, whether it mutates escrow state, idempotency, permissions beyond subscription, or what happens on success.

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 wasted words. Its brevity is efficient, though the same brevity contributes to under-specification elsewhere.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given five parameters, a nested object, no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, one sentence is not enough context to call the tool correctly. It states the basic action and a subscription prerequisite, but leaves most operational and parameter semantics unexplained.

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% for five parameters, including a nested 'grant' object. The description only implies that 'escrow_id' is relevant by mentioning an escrow, and gives no meaning for 'grant', 'cadence_s', 'directory', or 'server_name'.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a retention watch on an escrow.' It is reasonably distinguishable from sibling tools such as watch_check, though it does not explicitly name or contrast alternatives.

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?

The only contextual guidance is '(subscription required),' which is a prerequisite rather than usage guidance. It does not explain when to use this tool rather than watch_check, retention_diff, retention_escrow, or retention_packet.

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

All Directory Submission Retention Proof tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?