Zoning Signal

List Watch Items

list_watch_items

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return The Watch — the field's forward calendar of pending events, scheduled hearings, regulatory sunsets, and condition-triggered milestones the observatory is tracking. Filter by status (pending / resolved / obsolete), horizon (imminent / near-term / structural), or scope (place / corridor / brief). Use to surface what the field is watching from any cognitive position.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`brief`	No	Optional: filter to items linked to a specific named-pattern brief.
`place`	No	Optional: filter to items scoped to a specific place dossier (e.g., "leesburg-florida").
`status`	No	Filter by lifecycle status. Defaults to 'pending' (active watch items only); pass 'all' for the full corpus including resolved + obsolete entries.
`horizon`	No	Optional: filter to items in the named horizon band. Imminent = ≤14 days; near-term = ≤90 days; structural = >90 days or condition-triggered.
`corridor`	No	Optional: filter to items scoped to a specific corridor (e.g., "us-27-south-lake").

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No
`status`	No
`watch_items`	No

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is explicit. The description adds context about the nature of items (forward calendar, condition-triggered milestones) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like defaults, pagination, or response format. It does not contradict annotations.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. It is concise, but the phrase 'from any cognitive position' is abstract and adds little practical value. Overall, it is efficient and easy to scan.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With five optional parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned, what filters are available, and the intended use. It does not need to explain return structure (output schema exists) or safety (annotations cover it). A little more detail about default status behavior would make it fully complete, but for a list tool this is sufficient.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% coverage, with descriptions for every parameter (status, horizon, place, corridor, brief). The description repeats the filter categories at a high level ('status (pending / resolved / obsolete), horizon (imminent / near-term / structural), or scope (place / corridor / brief)') but adds no new syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return The Watch — the field's forward calendar of pending events, scheduled hearings, regulatory sunsets, and condition-triggered milestones.' This makes clear what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling describe_* and list_* tools by focusing on tracking items rather than describing a place or entity.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description says 'Use to surface what the field is watching from any cognitive position,' providing clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is evident. A named alternative or exclusion would strengthen it, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to choose this tool over siblings.

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?