Return the custom watchlist of the active scanner profile (or ?profile_id=...).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_watchlist"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Return' plus 'custom watchlist' establishes a read operation and clarifies the default target (active scanner profile), but nothing is said about what happens when no active profile exists, whether it requires auth, or how an empty watchlist is represented.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no redundant wording. The parenthetical override is slightly cryptic but earns its place by conveying the default behavior.
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?
The tool is simple (one optional param, output schema present so return values needn't be explained), and the description covers the core default-vs-override distinction. It falls short of fully adequate because with zero annotation coverage it should at least note the read-only nature and behavior when no active profile is set.
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 coverage is 0% — profile_id is documented only as 'Profile Id' with a null default. The description does add the key semantic that omitting it uses the active scanner profile, which is genuine value, but the '?profile_id=...' notation is a URL snippet rather than an explanation of accepted value types or failure modes.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Return the custom watchlist', scoped to 'the active scanner profile'. An agent can contrast it with the sibling update_watchlist from the verb alone, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
Implicit guidance only: use it to read the watchlist, and pass profile_id to target a non-active profile. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_portfolio or when not to use it, and no prerequisites are given.
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.