signal-bureau

get_watch_feed

Read-onlyIdempotent

The structured daily delivery for a machine-watched topic: up to 14 days of observed items (title, url, source, date) newest-first, plus the topic's live coverage-acceptance report, which grades the coverage and shows the evidence. Delivery is pull: you or your agent check, and the reading says what changed. Topics not yet watched: get_quote checks which of them we read, and save_watch keeps them, free.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "topic": "<topic>"
    },
    "name": "get_watch_feed"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`days`	No	How many recent days to return (1-14, default 14)
`since`	No	Optional. What changed since then: an ISO time (2026-10-01 or 2026-10-01T12:00:00Z) or the readingId a previous call returned. Adds a `delta` block listing the items first seen after it, by canonical address (a re-listed address is not new). States: compared, no-new, beyond-window (older than the 14-day window: unknown, not none), cannot-measure (names the pass that failed). Departures are never inferred. Omit it and the payload is unchanged.
`topic`	Yes	The watched topic name (as quoted/ordered)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 6, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / since

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. What changed since then: an ISO time (2026-10-01 or 2026-10-01T12:00:00Z) or the readingId a previous call returned. Adds a `delta` block listing the items first seen after it, by canonical address (a re-listed address is not new). States: compared, no-new, beyond-window (older than the 14-day window: unknown, not none), cannot-measure (names the pass that failed). Departures are never inferred. Omit it and the payload is unchanged.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedAug 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description still adds real behavior: the hard 14-day horizon, that the coverage report grades and shows evidence rather than just asserting, and that delivery is pull-based with no push. The delta semantics (including that departures are never inferred and beyond-window means unknown, not none) are valuable, though they largely live in the schema rather than the prose.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the pull-model and sibling-routing notes. The closing 'free' is light promotional padding and the middle sentence is a bit loose, but nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: item fields, ordering, the 14-day cap, the coverage report, and the delta block are all named. What it omits is the actual grading vocabulary of the coverage-acceptance report and what happens with a topic name that matches nothing, which keeps it short of complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents days, since (ISO time or readingId), and topic in detail. The description adds only the loose 'up to 14 days' framing and does not explain the since/readingId mechanics or the delta-block states itself, so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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?

States a specific resource and shape: a per-topic watch feed with up to 14 days of observed items (title, url, source, date) newest-first, plus a coverage-acceptance report. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_quote (check coverage of unwatched topics) and save_watch (persist them), so an agent can tell which feed tool it is without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the pull model ('you or your agent check') and routes unwatched topics to get_quote/save_watch. It does not, however, contrast this feed against the many other feed-like siblings (get_desk_feed, get_signals, todays_brief, get_corroborated), so the choice among feeds is left partly to inference.

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

All signal-bureau tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?