Skip to main content
Glama

longwatch

by dev.coinop

Watch a web page for text changes

watch_web_page

Monitor a public web page between agent runs and alert with added and removed text when it changes. Includes 7 days of polling. Costs $0.005 USDC per call via x402 (Base) — no API key, no account. Calling without payment returns 402 with the payment requirements. Free alternative: GET https://longwatch.dev/demo for a free NVDA Form 4 sample, or POST https://longwatch.dev/try for a 24h watch — no wallet needed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYespublic http(s) page URL
webhookNooptional HTTPS endpoint for signed push alerts; polling still works
idempotency_keyNounique retry key; the same key and input return the original watch

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behaviors: paid $0.005 USDC via x402, no API key/account, 402 on missing payment, 7-day polling, and public-page limitation. It does not cover response format or watch lifecycle, but the crucial cost/payment behavior is transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then pricing, then error/alternatives. No filler; every sentence carries operational information an agent needs before calling.

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?

The description covers payment prerequisites, error behavior, retention, and what kind of alert is produced. It lacks an explicit statement of the immediate API response/return value, which matters because there is no output schema, but the essential invocation context is present.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: url, webhook, and idempotency_key are already documented there. The free-text description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Monitor a public web page' and specifies the output ('alert with added and removed text'). It also frames the tool as continuous ('between agent runs'), separating it from one-shot sibling check tools.

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?

It clearly establishes use for ongoing monitoring ('between agent runs', '7 days of polling') and points to free demo/trial endpoints as alternatives. It does not explicitly name sibling check tools as the alternative for one-time checks, but the context is unambiguous enough.

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

All longwatch toolsInspect
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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly separated into immediate check_* and persistent watch_* counterparts across distinct source types, plus lifecycle tools for creating, polling, and deleting watches. The generic check_now and create_watch overlap somewhat with the specialized check_*/watch_* tools, but the descriptions clarify session vs. persistent usage.

Naming Consistency4/5

The check_<source>/watch_<source> pairing is consistent across all six monitored source types, and lifecycle tools use predictable verb-based names like create_watch, delete_watch, poll_alerts, and try_watch. Minor deviations like check_now and create_watch rather than watch_create break the pattern slightly, but the overall convention remains legible.

Tool Count4/5

Eighteen tools is on the heavier side, but the count is justified by six source types each having both a check and watch mode, plus lifecycle operations. The generic check_now and create_watch add redundancy with the specialized tools, making the set slightly larger than strictly necessary.

Completeness3/5

The server covers immediate checks, persistent watches, trial watches, polling, and deletion, so the main monitoring workflow is present. However, there is no update_watch, list_watches, or get_watch status tool, so agents cannot modify or enumerate existing watches and must delete/recreate instead.

Resources