List this API key's recall watch patterns. Requires an API key.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_watch_patterns"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| patterns | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that the results are scoped to the authenticated API key and that an API key is required, which is not indicated by the annotations alone.
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 two short, purposeful sentences. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the auth requirement is stated in the second sentence without any filler or redundancy.
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?
For a parameterless, read-only list operation with an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is being listed, the scope, and the authentication requirement. No critical behavioral or usage information is missing.
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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is fully self-describing with an empty object. The description therefore does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the zero-parameter baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 the action ('List'), the resource ('recall watch patterns'), and the scope ('this API key's'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_api_keys and list_recall_notifications, making the tool's purpose immediately unambiguous.
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 clear context: this tool lists watch patterns associated with the current API key, and requires an API key for access. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the scoped phrasing makes the appropriate usage obvious for a simple list operation.
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.