Skip to main content
Glama

watch_site

Report only the acquisitions new since the last check of this site.

SAR's value for monitoring is its cadence, so the natural workflow is
*standing*: run the same search each time and act only on what changed. This
tool packages that idempotent delta — call it in one turn, come back a day
(or a session) later and call it again, and it returns just the passes
published in between, not the whole list again. The scheduler is you: ask the
agent to check the site, and it reports the delta.

Define the site with the same filters as ``search_catalog`` — ``place``
(geocoded to a bbox), ``area`` (task/site-name substring, loosened by
``fuzzy``), ``bbox``, ``products``, and ``start``/``end`` date bounds. The
watch is identified by a stable ``name`` derived from those filters (pass an
explicit ``name`` to run several independent watches over the same site);
``reset=True`` re-establishes the baseline, reporting everything as new.

State persists in the local catalog index's ``meta`` table (created on first
use), so a watch survives across sessions with no extra setup. ``local``
selects the search backend exactly as in ``search_catalog`` — leave it unset
to use the on-disk index when present and a live S3 walk otherwise; for true
monitoring a live walk (``local=false``) catches freshly published passes.
**No model is called** — this is pure set arithmetic over the deterministic
search — and the returned ``new_items`` are context cards ready to hand
straight to ``change_composite`` / ``timescan``, closing the standing-analyst
loop (new pass → composite → describe) without leaving the conversation.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endNo
areaNo
bboxNo
nameNo
fuzzyNo
localNo
placeNo
resetNo
startNo
productsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses idempotent delta semantics, persistent state in the catalog index meta table, reset baseline behavior, backend behavior, and that no model is called. It also explains that the result is produced by deterministic set arithmetic and returns context cards for downstream tools.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the key delta behavior and organized logically into workflow, parameters, state, and downstream use. It is somewhat long and occasionally narrative, but the length is largely justified by the tool's complexity and the absence of schema descriptions.

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?

Given 10 parameters, no annotations, and a complex stateful monitoring workflow, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be fully enumerated, and the description still adds useful downstream context.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 10 parameters, and it does: it explains place geocoding, area substring and fuzzy matching, bbox, products, start/end bounds, name-derived watch identity, reset, and local backend selection. This adds substantial semantic meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: reporting only acquisitions that are new since the last check of a site. It explicitly distinguishes the delta behavior from returning a whole list, and links the filters to the sibling search_catalog workflow.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It describes the standing-monitoring workflow directly: run the same watch repeatedly and act only on what changed. It also explains reset behavior, independent watches via name, and backend choice via local, leaving little ambiguity about when and how to use it.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.