watches_activeCurrently-active watches summary text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | HTML content of currently-active watches (max 30000 chars) | |
| format | Yes | Response format |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "body": {
+ "description": "HTML content of currently-active watches (max 30000 chars)",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "format": {
+ "description": "Response format",
+ "enum": [
+ "html"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "format",
+ "body"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that output is a 'summary text' and that it concerns 'currently-active' watches, implying time-sensitivity. This adds value beyond annotations but is minimal.
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 extremely concise (4 words) and front-loaded. However, it may be too brief, lacking context that clarifies 'watches' as weather-related. It earns its place but could benefit from slight expansion.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no params, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It states the output is a summary text of active watches, but does not explicitly link to weather context. An AI agent might infer from sibling names, but explicit mention would improve completeness.
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?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100% by default. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable.
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 'Currently-active watches summary text' clearly indicates the tool returns a summary of active watches. The verb 'summary' and resource 'watches' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like convective_outlook or storm_reports, though context implies these are different weather products.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the list of sibling tools with overlapping weather domains, explicit usage context would help but is absent.
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.