Read the machine-readable change feed for a watch you provisioned. Free — you already paid for the cycles that produced it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No | ||
| watch_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is free ('Free — you already paid for the cycles that produced it') and that the output is machine-readable, which adds useful context. However, it does not mention potential errors, pagination, or any side effects beyond the implied read-only nature.
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?
The description is exceptionally concise, with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds a cost-related behavioral note. There is no wasted wording, and every sentence contributes meaningful information.
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 with only two parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks details about the change feed's behavior (e.g., whether it is incremental, ordered, or time-limited). Given the existence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves several behavioral aspects unstated.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides only a vague implication that watch_id refers to a provisioned watch. The api_key parameter is not addressed, and there is no guidance on formats or where to find watch_id. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 clearly states 'Read the machine-readable change feed for a watch you provisioned.' This specifies the verb (read), the resource (change feed for a watch), and the scope (a watch you provisioned), distinguishing it from sibling tools like guild_watch which likely provisions the watch.
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 implicitly indicates this tool is used after provisioning a watch ('for a watch you provisioned'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list makes it apparent that guild_watch is the provisioning counterpart.
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.
Tools are grouped by prefix (ag_calc_, ag_data_, ag_json_, ag_table_, ag_text_), which helps disambiguate. However, some clusters like guild_search, guild_check, guild_risk_score, and guild_best_agent have overlapping goals (all find or evaluate agents), and guild_prove and guild_prove_verify are tightly coupled but distinct. Overall, most tools have clear purposes.
The tools follow a consistent verb_noun or domain_verb pattern (e.g., ag_calc_stats, ag_data_dedupe, guild_search). The mix of ag_ and guild_ prefixes is slightly inconsistent, but within each group naming is uniform. No chaotic mixing of cases (all snake_case). Minor deduction for the split prefix.
39 tools is on the high side for a single MCP server. While the tools are genuinely useful and cover distinct deterministic utilities plus guild trust operations, the count feels heavy. A more focused split (e.g., separate server for deterministic utilities vs. guild trust) could improve coherence.
The server covers a broad set of deterministic utilities (statistics, unit conversion, JSON, CSV, regex, date normalization) and a full trust/reputation workflow (register, search, check, risk score, escrow, attest, record, passport, verify, preflight). There are no obvious gaps: for the declared capabilities, the tool surface is comprehensive.