aicom_watch_statusFREE. List the Reliability Watches on your account — each watched subject, whether it is active, when the window expires, and its CURRENT measured reliability (coverage/band/score/metrics). Use it to see what you are monitoring and catch an incident (a watched subject that flipped to failing or drifted its contract).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It declares the tool is FREE and lists the output details, including the ability to detect incidents. It does not mention side effects, rate limits, or authentication, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'List' and 'check'.
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?
Two concise sentences: first describes what the tool does and returns, second gives the primary use case. No unnecessary words, well-structured and front-loaded.
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 tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, why to use it, and how it fits into monitoring. The sibling list shows this is one of many, but the description sufficiently distinguishes it.
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?
There are no parameters (0), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by elaborating on the output fields, but since no parameters exist, a 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 tool lists Reliability Watches with specific fields (active status, window expiry, reliability metrics). The verb 'List' and resource 'Reliability Watches' are specific, and it differentiates from siblings like aicom_watch (create) and aicom_reliability_scoreboard (broader).
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 includes 'Use it to see what you are monitoring and catch an incident', which gives clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the uniqueness among siblings is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.