List website-change monitors for the caller, returning the most recently created first (up to 100); free to call.
List website-change monitors. Returns the caller's own monitors (most recently created first, capped at 100). Free to call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a decent job: it discloses ownership scope (caller's own monitors), ordering (most recently created first), a hard limit (capped at 100), and cost ("Free to call"). It omits return payload shape or pagination details, but for a simple read-only list operation the key behaviors are covered.
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 sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is stated first, followed by the most decision-relevant details (ownership, ordering, cap, cost). Every clause earns its place.
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 is nearly complete: it states what is returned, who it belongs to, ordering, limit, and cost. The main gap is that no response structure is described, so an agent must infer what fields a monitor object contains, though the sibling tool family likely supplies that context.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed—there is nothing to configure. The explicit "caller's own monitors" wording reinforces that no filter parameters exist.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: "List website-change monitors." It further clarifies scope ("the caller's own monitors"), ordering ("most recently created first"), and limit ("capped at 100"), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from the sibling single-item monitors_get and check-oriented monitors_checks.
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 implies usage: call when you need a list of your own monitors. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools like monitors_get for retrieving a single monitor or monitors_checks for checking changes. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.