automaton

chgwatch__watch

Register a URL for ongoing monitoring: action=add stores a baseline, action=check reports changes vs it. Price: $0.01 per call in USDC on Base (eip155:8453), paid with x402 in params._meta["x402/payment"]. HTTP: GET https://api.firstmention.uk/s/chgwatch/watch

Tool call template

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": "chgwatch__watch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	No
`urls`	No
`action`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedNov 6, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / action
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedInput schema / properties / mode
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- removedInput schema / properties / store
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
- removedInput schema / properties / url
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
- addedInput schema / properties / urls
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "url"
-]
```

Changed3 schema fields changedNov 2, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / mode

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "What to compare",
-  "enum": [
-    "text",
-    "markdown",
-    "meta",
-    "links"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / store / description

Removed value: -"true to save this snapshot as the new baseline"

removedInput schema / properties / url / description

Removed value: -"URL to diff against its stored baseline"

AddedOct 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the stateful two-phase model (baseline then diff), the exact cost ($0.01 per call in USDC on Base, eip155:8453), the payment mechanism via x402 in params._meta, and the HTTP transport. It does not say what happens when checking a URL with no stored baseline, whether re-adding overwrites a baseline, or how errors are surfaced.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact clauses, front-loaded with purpose, then mode semantics, then cost/payment/endpoint. No filler sentences and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a stateful monitoring tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers cost and payment well but leaves the return value of action=check undefined (what a 'change' report contains) and the meaning of 'mode' unknown. An agent can call it, but cannot predict its output or confidently populate every parameter.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters. It explains action's two values but leaves 'mode' entirely unexplained and gives no format for 'urls' despite the plural name (single URL, list, or comma-separated is ambiguous). It also references params._meta["x402/payment"], which does not appear in the input schema at all, creating a mismatch an agent must guess about.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Register a URL for ongoing monitoring') and clarifies the two operating modes: action=add stores a baseline, action=check reports changes against it. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as chgwatch__diff, chgwatch__watchlist, or web_extract__page_watch, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It does distinguish the two internal modes clearly, which is genuine when-to-use guidance for the action parameter. However, it offers no guidance on when to pick this tool over sibling monitoring/change-detection tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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

All automaton tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?