APIClaw

openapi_v2_voc_watchlist_list

List the ASINs in your review watchlist

List the ASINs on your review watchlist, newest first.

Use this to see which products you're monitoring, then drive Voice-of-Customer analysis over them with /voc/analysis. Shared with the Web Console. Free of charge. Related: /voc/analysis.

Responses:

200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json

Example Response:

{
  "success": true,
  "meta": {
    "requestId": "Requestid",
    "timestamp": "Timestamp"
  }
}

Output Schema:

{
  "properties": {
    "success": {
      "type": "boolean",
      "title": "Success",
      "description": "Whether the request was successful",
      "default": true
    },
    "data": {
      "description": "Response data payload"
    },
    "error": {
      "description": "Error details if request failed"
    },
    "meta": {
      "description": "Metadata for API responses.\n\nCredit fields follow the ADR-0003 parallel-fields strategy (Option 3):\n- `credits_remaining` / `credits_consumed` (int): legacy fields, rounded\n  to whole credits, kept for zero-breaking-change to existing SDK clients.\n- `credits_remaining_exact` / `credits_consumed_exact` (float): new\n  precision-aware fields for clients that opt in to decimal credits.\n\nSee ADR-0003 decision 5 and the \u00a78 deprecation timeline.\n\nTODO(2026-11, ADR-0003 \u00a78 +6mo): mark `credits_remaining` /\n`credits_consumed` as `deprecated=True` in their Field() definitions\nand announce in customer changelog.\nTODO(2027-05, ADR-0003 \u00a78 +12mo): remove the legacy int fields via a\nmajor-version bump of the OpenAPI surface.",
      "properties": {
        "requestId": {
          "type": "string",
          "title": "Requestid",
          "description": "Unique request identifier"
        },
        "timestamp": {
          "type": "string",
          "title": "Timestamp",
          "description": "Response timestamp in ISO 8601 format"
        },
        "total": {
          "title": "Total",
          "description": "Total number of records"
        },
        "page": {
          "title": "Page",
          "description": "Current page number"
        },
        "pageSize": {
          "title": "Pagesize",
          "description": "Number of records per page"
        },
        "totalPages": {
          "title": "Totalpages",
          "description": "Total number of pages"
        },
        "creditsRemaining": {
          "title": "Creditsremaining",
          "description": "Remaining API credits (rounded to whole credits; see creditsRemainingExact for precise value)"
        },
        "creditsConsumed": {
          "title": "Creditsconsumed",
          "description": "Credits consumed by this request (rounded; see creditsConsumedExact for precise value)"
        },
        "creditsRemainingExact": {
          "title": "Creditsremainingexact",
          "description": "Remaining API credits, precise to 1 decimal place"
        },
        "creditsConsumedExact": {
          "title": "Creditsconsumedexact",
          "description": "Credits consumed by this request, precise to 1 decimal place"
        },
        "tokensUsage": {
          "description": "Provider token-usage block \u2014 populated on terminal video polls only, null on every non-video endpoint. See TokensUsage for its fields."
        }
      },
      "type": "object",
      "required": [
        "requestId",
        "timestamp"
      ],
      "title": "ResponseMeta"
    }
  },
  "type": "object",
  "required": [
    "meta"
  ],
  "title": "OpenApiResponse[WatchlistListDTO]",
  "examples": []
}

422: Validation Error Content-Type: application/json

Example Response:

{
  "detail": [
    {
      "loc": [],
      "msg": "Message",
      "type": "Error Type",
      "ctx": {}
    }
  ]
}

Output Schema:

{
  "properties": {
    "detail": {
      "items": {
        "properties": {
          "loc": {
            "items": {},
            "type": "array",
            "title": "Location"
          },
          "msg": {
            "type": "string",
            "title": "Message"
          },
          "type": {
            "type": "string",
            "title": "Error Type"
          },
          "input": {
            "title": "Input"
          },
          "ctx": {
            "type": "object",
            "title": "Context"
          }
        },
        "type": "object",
        "required": [
          "loc",
          "msg",
          "type"
        ],
        "title": "ValidationError"
      },
      "type": "array",
      "title": "Detail"
    }
  },
  "type": "object",
  "title": "HTTPValidationError"
}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds useful details like 'newest first' ordering, 'Shared with the Web Console,' and 'Free of charge.' However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only (though 'List' implies it). The response schema heavy with credit metadata adds context but does not address these gaps.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core description is front-loaded and clear: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by the use case and related tool. However, the description bloats with a large embedded output schema and detailed credit metadata (e.g., ADR-0003, deprecated field timelines) that is not essential for selecting or invoking the tool. This reduces conciseness.

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?

For a simple no-parameter list endpoint, the description is quite complete: it explains what is listed, the ordering, the use case, related tools, and cost. The response schema in the description shows pagination fields, though it does not clearly define the data payload structure for ASINs. Still, the description suffices for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and schema coverage is 100%. According to the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, which is appropriate because there is nothing to clarify.

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 clearly states the tool's function with specific verb and resource: 'List the ASINs in your review watchlist' and 'List the ASINs on your review watchlist, newest first.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like watchlist add/remove and analysis, all of which have different operations.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use this to see which products you're monitoring.' It also points to the alternative next step, '/voc/analysis', for further analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for adding/removing watchlist items), though this is implied by the sibling tool names.

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

All APIClaw 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

B3.2/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have unclear boundaries, most notably openapi_v2_competitor_product_keywords and openapi_v2_product_traffic_terms, which have identical descriptions. The deprecated openapi_v2_realtime_product duplicates openapi_v3_realtime_product, and openapi_v2_image_embedding overlaps heavily with openapi_v2_fashion_image_embedding.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: a few tools follow a clean verb_noun pattern (create_video_asset, list_video_assets, poll_video_task), while the vast majority are prefixed with openapi_v2_/openapi_v3_ followed by nouns or mixed verbs. The route-style prefix is not a meaningful verb and creates an arbitrary split across the tool set.

Tool Count2/5

49 tools is far beyond the well-scoped range and spans multiple unrelated domains (Amazon product data, TikTok commerce, fashion vision, web scraping, video generation, billing). The server appears to be an entire REST API surface exposed wholesale rather than a curated set of capabilities.

Completeness3/5

Each domain is individually fairly complete (Amazon search/reviews/keywords/VoC, TikTok search, web tools, video generation), but there are notable gaps: video assets lack update/delete, video tasks lack cancel/list, and there is no singular 'get daily product by ASIN' alongside the realtime variants. The broad scope makes it hard to verify full lifecycle coverage across all domains.

Resources

Need Help?