get_watchlist
Read-only
Get your saved candidates (watchlist).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| status | No |
queryquarry
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not mention pagination, status filtering behavior, or what the response contains beyond 'candidates'. The description adds minimal value beyond the annotation.
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 description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. However, it is under-specified, lacking any elaboration on parameters or usage. It is efficient but not appropriately sized for the information needs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (2 optional params, no output schema) and good annotations, the description still fails to provide complete context. It does not explain how to use page/status, what results to expect, or how this relates to other tools. The description is too sparse for an agent to invoke correctly without further assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the 'page' or 'status' parameters at all, leaving the agent without any clue about their purpose, allowed values, or how they affect results. No compensation for missing schema documentation.
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 action ('Get') and the specific resource ('your saved candidates (watchlist)'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_new_candidates and search_candidates. The verb+resource structure is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_candidates or get_candidate. It implies usage for viewing watchlist, but does not state exclusions or mention the optional page/status parameters that affect usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: subscription, candidate search, detailed view, contact management, stats, docs, new candidates, watchlist, outcome reporting, and saving. No two tools overlap in purpose; the descriptions clearly differentiate them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., check_subscription, get_candidate, search_candidates). The verbs vary as needed for different actions, maintaining a predictable structure.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the set is well-scoped for a candidate sourcing platform. It covers search, detailed viewing, contact, watchlist management, subscription, and documentation without being excessive or too sparse.
Completeness4/5
Core workflows are covered: search, view, request contact, report outcome, save to watchlist. Minor gaps exist, such as lacking a remove-from-watchlist tool or a way to cancel a contact request, but these do not severely hinder the main use case.