List the signed-in Scout account's watches (store collection URLs being monitored), including cadence, active state, and last check time.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_watches"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the result contents (cadence, active state, last check time) and that results are limited to the signed-in account, which is meaningful context. However, it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or read-only guarantees, leaving gaps for an unannotated tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and scope stated first, followed by the returned fields. The parenthetical definition of "watches" is the only addition and it earns its place by disambiguating the domain term.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers who the data belongs to and which fields come back, which is what an agent needs to decide to call it. Minor omissions around result ordering and volume limits keep it short of full 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the schema is trivially complete. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies, with no description-side deficiency.
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?
States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("watches"), and defines the domain object inline as "store collection URLs being monitored," which removes ambiguity about what a watch is. Scope is narrowed to the "signed-in Scout account." It does not explicitly name a sibling such as get_watch, but the listed/add/updated distinction is inferable from the sibling names.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the plural "watches" and account scoping suggest this is the enumerate-everything tool, with get_watch presumably handling a single item. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no mention of what to do when the account has zero watches.
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.