Retrieve all authenticated user's OmniWatchGuard monitors with change counts from the past 7 days and the last detected change, so you can review status and recent activity.
List all OmniWatchGuard monitors of the authenticated user, with the number of changes in the last 7 days and the last detected change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose the payload shape (change count over the last 7 days and the last detected change), which signals a read-only aggregate view, but says nothing about permissions, result limits, pagination, or ordering.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope constraint and the returned fields are both stated without redundancy.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and zero params, the description is the only source of information, and it does name the returned fields, which covers the most important gap. It stops short of describing pagination or result bounds for a potentially unbounded list call.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing further for the description to clarify 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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('OmniWatchGuard monitors') plus scope ('of the authenticated user'), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It implies differentiation from the singular get_monitor sibling via 'all', but never names or contrasts an alternative explicitly.
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 by the word 'List' and the 'all monitors of the authenticated user' scope; there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion criteria, and no pointer to siblings like get_monitor or list_alerts. Adequate but with clear gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.