List active CI/CD watches to monitor pending Forgejo pipeline runs and collect their later success, failure, or deploy-finished outcomes.
List active CI/CD watches
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": "watch_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that this is a read-only operation, how "active" is determined (enabled flag? recent trigger? subscription state?), whether results are paginated or bounded, or whether any authorization scope is required to enumerate watches.
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?
A single five-word sentence with no filler, and the scope qualifier "active" is placed immediately before the resource. Brevity is a virtue here, though the terseness shades into under-specification rather than crisp precision.
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?
Although the tool is a simple zero-parameter read, both annotations and an output schema are absent, so the description is the only source of behavioral information — and it explains neither what a watch is nor what a returned list would contain. For a domain-specific concept with no structured support, this leaves the agent guessing.
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 and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter meaning the description needs to add. Baseline for a parameterless tool applies; nothing is missing on this dimension.
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?
"List active CI/CD watches" gives a clear verb (List) and resource (CI/CD watches) scoped to "active", which separates it from mutation siblings like cicd_start and git_push. However, "watch" is undefined jargon — an agent cannot tell whether a watch is a pipeline subscription, a webhook registration, or a monitored branch, so the resource is named but not explained.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives such as ci_runs or cicd_events for retrieving CI/CD activity. The agent must infer from the word "active" alone whether this tool is for auditing existing watches or for discovering something to start.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.