usom-mcp

Watch Add

watch_add

Idempotent

Add domains, IPs, URLs, or CIDR networks to a local watch list for monitoring. Attach an optional label to identify the owning team.

Instructions

Add your own domains/IPs/networks to the local watch list.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "values": "<values>"
    },
    "name": "watch_add"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`label`	No	Optional note, e.g. the owning team.
`values`	Yes	Domains, IPs, URLs or CIDR networks to monitor.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`added`	Yes
`total`	Yes
`rejected`	Yes
`already_present`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety/repeat behavior is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful scope detail that entries go to a 'local' watch list rather than a shared one, but says nothing about how duplicate entries are reconciled or whether additions are persisted across restarts.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler. Nothing in it is redundant with the name or schema, and nothing is padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the input surface is trivial (one required array plus an optional label). Still, for a mutation-style tool the definition omits the preconditions and follow-up actions an agent would want, leaving it merely adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (label, values) are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description loosely corroborates the 'values' parameter by naming domains/IPs/networks, but contributes no syntax, format, or label semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb ('Add') plus resource and target ('your own domains/IPs/networks to the local watch list'), so the operation is unmistakable. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the nearest siblings (watch_remove, watch_list, watch_check), but the add/remove/list distinction is self-evident from the wording.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or exclusion, and no routing to alternatives such as watch_check (to test an entry now) or watch_list (to inspect existing entries). Usage is only implied by the verb 'Add'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server