DouxProcess Directory

Watch licenses

watch_licenses

Emails the person a link to watch these CSLB licenses: once they open it, they get one short email on any day something changes on one (status, workers' comp, bonds, classes, expiry). Nothing is watched until the person opens the link. Use the person's own email, only when they asked. Free watches 25 licenses, Pro up to 500 for $99 a year, Unlimited every license they add for $999 a year. Not for decisions about a person's credit, employment, insurance or housing.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "email": "<email>",
      "licenses": "<licenses>"
    },
    "name": "watch_licenses"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes	The person's own email address.
`licenses`	Yes	CSLB license numbers or listing links, up to 500.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`why`	No
`note`	No
`sent`	Yes
`email`	No
`tiers`	No
`unknown`	No
`licenses`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the double opt-in (nothing is watched until the recipient opens the link), the notification cadence, the exact change types monitored (status, workers' comp, bonds, classes, expiry), and tier-based caps (25 free / 500 Pro / 999 Unlimited). This is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true — the call sends mail and creates a pending watch, not a pure read.

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?

Core action and the critical 'nothing watched until the link is opened' caveat are front-loaded in the first two sentences. The pricing tiers and prohibited-use sentence are bulkier but each carries a real constraint, so little is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, annotations covering safety/open-world traits, and 100% parameter coverage, the description covers everything an agent needs: who gets the email, what gets monitored, the opt-in gate, volume limits, and disallowed use cases.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully documented, so the baseline applies. The description reinforces the 'person's own email' constraint and mentions the 500-license cap, but both already appear in the schema field descriptions, so it adds little new semantics.

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?

States a specific verb chain (emails a link to watch) and resource (CSLB licenses), plus the outcome (one short email on any day something changes). It's clearly distinguishable from siblings like verify_license or license_history, which read data rather than set up recurring monitoring.

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?

Gives explicit conditions: 'Use the person's own email, only when they asked,' and a prohibited-use exclusion ('Not for decisions about a person's credit, employment, insurance or housing'). It does not route the agent to a specific sibling when the user only wants a one-time check rather than ongoing watching, which keeps it from a 5.

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

All DouxProcess Directory tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?