list_watchesRetrieve all indicators of compromise on the active watch-list with their last-known status as a Markdown table for quick security review.
List all IOCs currently on the watch-list with their last-known status.
Returns: Markdown table of watched IOCs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states that it returns a markdown table including last-known status, but says nothing about permissions, freshness of the status data, or pagination. For a read-only listing tool the risk profile is low, so this is adequate rather than alarming.
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?
Two short sentences, the action front-loaded and the return shape stated second. No filler, no restatement of the title.
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?
An output schema exists, so the return values need not be spelled out, and with no input parameters the description is nearly complete. The only thin spot is the absence of any usage context, which keeps it short of full marks.
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 nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming it is unfiltered. Baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
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?
Specific verb ('List') plus a well-scoped resource ('IOCs currently on the watch-list') with the returned attribute (last-known status) named. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_watch, remove_watch, and analyze_ioc, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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 says what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_alerts or the watch-modification siblings. The agent must infer the intended invocation context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.