Check if the Telegram watcher daemon is running by reading its heartbeat; a stale result means watcher.py stopped and no new alerts are being recorded.
Check whether the watcher daemon is running and what it has seen.
Reports liveness from the daemon's heartbeat, so a 'stale' result means watcher.py has stopped and no new alerts are being recorded.
| 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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that liveness comes from a daemon heartbeat and that a 'stale' result indicates watcher.py has stopped, but it omits auth requirements, polling/caching behavior, and the shape of the returned status.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one piece of interpretive context. Little waste, though the second sentence could be tightened slightly.
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, the description should carry more of the return-value burden for a status tool. It explains the meaning of a 'stale' result but does not describe the other possible states or the fields the agent should expect to read.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter insight is missing because none 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether the watcher daemon is running', which is clearly distinct from sibling tools like auth_status or list_alert_rules. The only softness is 'what it has seen', which is vague about the return payload, and no sibling is named for contrast.
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 implied rather than stated: the note that a 'stale' result means 'no new alerts are being recorded' hints this is a diagnostic tool for missing alerts, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.