list_watchesList every domain on your snooze watchlist with its current status and drop forecast — so an agent can see what it is already tracking. Requires signing in to your snooze account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the authentication requirement. It also hints at the return content (status and drop forecast). No additional behavioral details are needed beyond this.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence conveys purpose and outcome; the second adds a crucial prerequisite. Front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Despite no parameters or output schema, the description fully conveys what the tool does, what it returns (status and drop forecast), and the authentication requirement. No significant omissions.
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?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it does not attempt to.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every domain on your snooze watchlist'), clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'watch_domains' and 'unwatch_domains' by being the only listing tool.
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?
The description provides context ('so an agent can see what it is already tracking') and a prerequisite ('requires signing in'), implying when to use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'check_domains'.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: checking domain status, brand name safety, listing watches, adding to watchlist, and removing from watchlist. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_domains, list_watches, watch_domains), making them predictable and easy for an agent to understand.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for domain monitoring and watchlist management. Each tool serves a necessary function without excess or deficiency.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle: checking domains, performing a safety check, adding/removing watches, and listing the watchlist. No obvious gaps for its intended domain monitoring purpose.