Zoning Signal

Describe Watch

describe_watch

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the full dossier for a watch item — the observatory's forward-looking observation primitive. Returns title, subtitle, scope (place / corridor / pattern / brief / region), trigger (type / date / condition), significance (horizon / confidence / why_it_matters_voxel), full body prose, four-clock freshness, and citation-stable claims[]. For RESOLVED watches, also returns the outcome cluster (outcome_type, outcome_summary, prediction_assessment with directional/horizon/significance assessments, lesson, citations) — and the lesson surfaces as a stable claim_id (per the Phase 11 Citable Contract × Phase 8 Resolution Bridge compound). Use to ground citations in a specific watch's prediction or resolution; pair with list_watch_items for discovery.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	The watch slug (e.g., "lake-bright-council-mar-23"). Use list_watch_items to discover available slugs.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`body`	No
`slug`	Yes
`type`	Yes
`scope`	No
`title`	No
`claims`	Yes
`outcome`	Yes
`trigger`	No
`subtitle`	No
`freshness`	Yes
`significance`	No

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds value by detailing exact fields returned and behavior for RESOLVED watches, which is beyond annotation scope. No contradictions exist.

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 dense but front-loaded with the primary purpose. It contains some technical terminology that could be streamlined (e.g., 'Phase 11 Citable Contract × Phase 8 Resolution Bridge'), but each sentence provides useful context, so it earns its length.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the single required parameter, full schema coverage, clear annotations, and an output schema (not shown but exists), the description is complete. It explains exactly what is returned, including conditional behavior for resolved watches, without needing to repeat output schema details.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents the 'slug' parameter well. The description adds meaning by explaining its purpose ('ground citations') and how to discover valid slugs via list_watch_items, which the schema does not provide.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'describe' and the resource 'watch item', and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming 'list_watch_items' for discovery. It enumerates specific data returned, making the tool's purpose precise and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly pairs use of this tool with 'list_watch_items' for discovery, and states when to use it: 'ground citations in a specific watch's prediction or resolution'. The sibling list confirms no other tool returns the full watch dossier, providing clear guidance.

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

All Zoning Signal tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are clearly distinct by resource type (describe/list pairs for places, corridors, entities, patterns, watches), but list_meetings and meeting_index overlap heavily—the former explicitly says it has the same response shape as the latter, differing only in required parameters. That near-duplication creates ambiguity about which to call.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (describe_*, list_*), with get_track_record and submit_agent_feedback also verb-led. However, meeting_index is a bare noun phrase and semantic_search is a noun compound, deviating from the otherwise strong pattern.

Tool Count4/5

At 17 tools, the server is slightly above the typical well-scoped range, but the count is justified by the many content types (six primary artifact types each with list+describe, plus meta tools). One could argue meeting_index is redundant, but the overall scope feels reasonable.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers the core lifecycle for all named content types (places, corridors, patterns, entities, meetings, watches) with discovery and description. However, the corpus repeatedly references 'briefs' (e.g., related briefs, semantic_search returns 'named-pattern briefs') yet there is no list_briefs or describe_brief tool, leaving an obvious content gap.

Resources

Need Help?