Fetch a website-change monitor by ID from your account. Free to call, it returns monitor details for tracking page changes.
Get a website-change monitor. Returns one of the caller's own monitors by id. Free to call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Monitor ID returned by your account monitor create/list response; replace the illustrative example with your own ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Monitor id"New value: +"Monitor ID returned by your account monitor create/list response; replace the illustrative example with your own ID"v1.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behaviors beyond the schema: the record must belong to the caller (ownership/authorization constraint) and the call is free (cost signal). It says nothing about error behavior for missing/foreign ids or what the response contains.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then scope, then the cost note. Nothing is padded or repeated, and each sentence carries a distinct fact.
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 single-param read with no output schema, the description covers action, scope and cost adequately. It could go slightly further by hinting at the returned monitor fields or the not-found behavior, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.
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?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining that the id comes from the account's create/list response. The description's "by id" adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 concrete verb and resource ("Get a website-change monitor") and scopes it to a single record by id, which implicitly separates it from the list/create/delete siblings. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so an agent must infer the contrast with monitors_list.
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 only implied: fetch one monitor when you already have an id. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. monitors_list for enumeration, monitors_checks for change history), leaving the routing decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.