Read a watchdog's state: interval, last beat, whether it is overdue, fired, or exhausted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| vigil_key | No | Legacy credential argument. Prefer the HTTP Authorization: Bearer header; omit this argument when that header authenticates the request. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying side effects. 'Read' clearly signals a non-mutating inspection, and the listed fields tell the agent what state information will be exposed. It does not detail authentication or error behavior, but that is partially addressed by the vigil_key parameter description in the schema.
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. It leads with the operation ('Read a watchdog's state') and then lists the useful state components, earning its place with every word.
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 simple read operation, listing the state fields is helpful, especially since there is no output schema. However, the description does not explain how the required name parameter maps to a watchdog, how errors are signaled, or what distinguishes this from closely named status/info siblings. Some additional routing or error context would make it fully complete.
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 only 50%, and the required 'name' parameter has no schema description. The tool description never states that the watchdog is identified by name, leaving the agent to infer it from 'a watchdog's state.' This does not meaningfully compensate for the undocumented required parameter.
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 uses a specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource, 'a watchdog's state,' and enumerates the key state dimensions (interval, last beat, overdue, fired, exhausted). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like vigil_heartbeat, which sends a beat, or vigil_set_watchdog, which creates one.
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 implies usage: call this tool when you need a watchdog's current state. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools such as vigil_info, vigil_lease_status, or vigil_get_receipt, nor does it mention any exclusions or preconditions.
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.
The tools are organized into clear domains—receipts/notarization, leases, journals, watchdogs, and account management—and each tool has a distinct resource or action. Minor confusion is possible between vigil_anchor and vigil_anchors, or between the various verification tools, but the descriptions generally make the boundaries clear.
All tools share the vigil_ prefix and use snake_case, but the verb/noun ordering is inconsistent: vigil_get_receipt and vigil_delete_watchdog use verb-first, while vigil_journal_get and vigil_journal_delete use resource-first. Several tools are also pure nouns (vigil_chain, vigil_usage, vigil_lease_status), making the overall pattern mixed but still readable.
At 26 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels heavy for a single MCP server, even though the tools cluster into several subsystems. Some status, info, and lease-listing tools could plausibly be consolidated without losing much capability.
The core lifecycle coverage is strong: receipts can be created, read, verified, and audited via the chain; leases have grant/renew/revoke/status/verify; journals have full CRUD; watchdogs have set/delete/status/heartbeat. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct way to update a watchdog without deleting and recreating it, but these are workable.