watch_runRun an immediate check now (charges 1 credit). Returns the queued run; poll watch_runs for the result or receive a watch.changed webhook.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The watch ID (UUID). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (which only signal non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses critical behaviors: the operation charges 1 credit, and it returns a 'queued run' rather than the final result, meaning the actual result must be obtained via polling or webhook. This async behavior and cost implication are essential and not present in annotations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It packs the action, cost, immediate return, and follow-up retrieval method into one concise statement.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what it does, what it returns (queued run), how to get the actual result (poll or webhook), and the cost. No important behavioral aspect is left unexplained.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the id parameter well-described as 'The watch ID (UUID)'. The tool description does not add any additional parameter meaning, but given full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 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: 'Run an immediate check now', identifying the specific resource (a watch run) and scope (immediate). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting you must 'poll watch_runs for the result', which differentiates the triggering action from the retrieval action.
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 conveys clear usage context: this is for running an immediate on-demand check, as opposed to scheduled or automated runs. It also guides the next step by pointing to watch_runs or webhook for result retrieval, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name direct alternatives like watch_test.
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 with explicit 'use when' and 'do NOT use' guidance in descriptions. The rendering tools are differentiated by output type (screenshot/PDF, hosted URL, branded artifact, extracted text), and the watch tools follow a patterned CRUD/run/test structure, leaving no ambiguity.
Most tools follow a 'prefix_verb' or 'prefix_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., rendex_screenshot, watch_create), but there are minor inconsistencies: 'render_artifact' lacks the 'rendex_' prefix, and 'watch_runs' is a noun rather than a verb. Overall, the names are still predictable and readable.
With 13 tools, the server is well-scoped. It covers two domains—rendering (5 tools) and monitoring (8 tools)—without unnecessary overlap or excessive complexity. Each tool earns its place in the set.
The rendering side covers screenshots, PDFs, hosted URLs, branded artifacts, and content extraction. The watch side provides full lifecycle management (create, get, list, update, delete), plus immediate runs, run history, and testing. There are no obvious gaps or dead ends in user workflows.