FactGrid (Renamed to FactReason)

Watch a specification

factreason_subscribe_spec_changes

Idempotent

Create a persistent specification watch for one service; a Bearer API key is required and each key may hold up to 50 watches. Without webhookUrl, read future events from the polling endpoint; with a public HTTP(S) URL, FactReason sends signed POST callbacks after later spec changes. Duplicate or unsafe webhook registrations are rejected. This does not ingest a specification immediately.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`apiKey`	No	Your FactReason API key, from factreason_create_key. Pass it here when your MCP client cannot set the Authorization: Bearer header on this connection; if the header is set, omit this. Never pass a key that belongs to someone else.
`webhookUrl`	No	Optional public HTTP(S) URL for signed change callbacks; omit to poll
`serviceName`	Yes	Service name to watch, e.g. "Stripe" or "SendGrid"

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`watch`	No
`success`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / apiKey

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Your FactReason API key, from factreason_create_key. Pass it here when your MCP client cannot set the Authorization: Bearer header on this connection; if the header is set, omit this. Never pass a key that belongs to someone else.",
+  "maxLength": 128,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed7 schema fields changedAug 14, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

changedInput schema / properties / serviceName / description

Previous value: -"Service name to watch, e.g. \"Stripe\", \"SendGrid\""New value: +"Service name to watch, e.g. \"Stripe\" or \"SendGrid\""

addedInput schema / properties / serviceName / maxLength
```
Added value: +200
```
addedInput schema / properties / serviceName / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```

changedInput schema / properties / webhookUrl / description

Previous value: -"Optional HTTP POST webhook URL to receive notifications"New value: +"Optional public HTTP(S) URL for signed change callbacks; omit to poll"

addedInput schema / properties / webhookUrl / format
```
Added value: +"uri"
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "error": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "watch": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "properties": {
+        "createdAt": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "serviceName": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "webhookUrl": {
+          "format": "uri",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedAug 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the Bearer API key requirement, a concrete 50-watch-per-key quota, the dual webhook/polling event delivery model with signed POST callbacks, rejection of duplicate/unsafe registrations, and the non-immediate-ingest caveat. This is rich operational context the annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Roughly four sentences, all front-loaded and information-dense with no filler. The auth and quota constraints come first, followed by the behavioral branch, which is a sensible ordering.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it still covers auth, quota, delivery mode, and the ingest exclusion. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including that webhookUrl defaults to polling. The description largely restates this dual-mode behavior with only marginal added phrasing ('read future events from the polling endpoint'), so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a persistent specification watch for one service.' This clearly distinguishes it as a watch/subscribe action rather than the scan or schema siblings, though it never names an alternative tool to differentiate itself explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear condition for the webhook vs polling branch ('Without webhookUrl... with a public HTTP(S) URL...') and adds an exclusion ('This does not ingest a specification immediately'). It stops short of naming sibling tools or the scenario that would favor them.

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

All FactGrid (Renamed to FactReason) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.