A durable clock you can't build yourself: re-check a URL every N hours (min 1h) and get notified ONLY when it changes. Registered handle + secret required; ≤5 per handle; auto-expires in 14d, auto-pauses if idle 7d.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| handle | Yes | ||
| secret | No | ||
| extract | No | ||
| pattern | No | regex, required if extract=grep | |
| callback_url | No | ||
| interval_seconds | Yes | ≥3600 (1h) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: auto-expiry, auto-pause, rate limits, and notification-only-on-change. Annotations are minimal, so the description carries full burden and addresses it well.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by key constraints. Each sentence adds value.
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?
Given the complexity (7 params, no output schema), the description provides adequate context for selection and basic invocation. It lacks details on return values or error cases but covers essential constraints.
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?
With only 29% schema coverage, the description adds meaning for required parameters (handle, secret, interval_seconds) via context like 'handle + secret required' and 'every N hours (min 1h)'. However, it does not explain optional parameters like extract, pattern, or callback_url, limiting completeness.
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 clearly states the tool creates a durable clock to re-check a URL at intervals and notify only on changes. It uses specific verbs and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cancel_watch or list_watches.
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?
Provides explicit constraints such as required handle/secret, limit of 5 per handle, auto-expiry in 14 days, and auto-pause after 7 idle days. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives.
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.
Many tools serve similar purposes (e.g., web_read vs browse_read, web_discover vs browse_discover, research vs web_search + browse). Descriptions help differentiate, but the overlap is notable.
Most tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., archive_message, browse_navigate). Minor deviations like standalone 'browse' and 'identity' are acceptable.
57 tools is very high for a single server, even with discover_tools. The broad domain coverage does not justify the count; it feels overloaded.
Covers identity, memory, browsing, human tasks, errands, messaging, and research comprehensively. Minor gaps might exist (e.g., no explicit agent-to-agent contract tools), but core workflows are well-supported.