Whisper

watch

whisper_watch

Watch an indicator for change/activity over time. Answers without an API key. Example call: {"skill":"watch","input":{"action":"list"}}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes	Arguments for this operation, as an object. The example passes {"action":"list"}.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rows`	Yes	The answers, one object per row, keyed by the column names above. An empty array means the question was understood and nothing matched, which is an answer and not a failure.
`columns`	Yes	The column names, in order. Every row object has exactly these keys, so this is the row shape and reading it is cheaper than inspecting a row.
`statistics`	No	What the query cost.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 25, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "A tabular graph answer: the column names, the rows keyed by them, and the cost.",
+  "properties": {
+    "columns": {
+      "description": "The column names, in order. Every row object has exactly these keys, so this is the row shape and reading it is cheaper than inspecting a row.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "rows": {
+      "description": "The answers, one object per row, keyed by the column names above. An empty array means the question was understood and nothing matched, which is an answer and not a failure.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "statistics": {
+      "description": "What the query cost.",
+      "properties": {
+        "executionTimeMs": {
+          "description": "Milliseconds the graph spent answering.",
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "rowCount": {
+          "description": "How many rows came back.",
+          "type": "integer"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "rowCount"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "columns",
+    "rows"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 24, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description adds the note that it answers without an API key, which is useful auth context. But it doesn't disclose whether the watch operation has side effects (despite readOnlyHint=false), rate limits, or what the 'watch' implies (e.g., polling vs. subscription). The annotations already hint at open world and non-read-only, but the description doesn't elaborate.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The example is a useful addition. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, so it's not as well-structured as it could be. It earns a 4 for efficiency, but not a 5 due to missing critical information.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has an output schema and is part of a large suite, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the full range of operations (only 'list' is shown), doesn't describe the output format, and doesn't clarify the behavioral contract. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly beyond the one example.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema has only a single 'input' object parameter, and the description provides an example with an 'action' field. However, it doesn't enumerate possible actions, required fields, or format. The schema description itself is vague ('Arguments for this operation'), so the example is the only real guidance, but it's insufficient for an agent to construct correct calls beyond that one example.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a clear purpose: watching an indicator for change/activity over time. However, it doesn't specify what constitutes an 'indicator' or how this differs from sibling tools like whisper_history or whisper_origins. The example shows an 'action' parameter, but the full scope of actions is unclear.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios or exclusions. The only hint is 'Answers without an API key,' which is more about authentication than usage context.

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

All Whisper tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context Every Agent Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and keep it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.