watchgoose-mcp

List Watchgoose checks

list_checks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve cron and recurring-task checks from a Watchgoose project, filtering by exact slug or required tags to review timeout and schedule status.

Instructions

List checks in this Watchgoose project, optionally filtered by slug or tags. A successful ping arms a new check; Watchgoose then expects the next success within its timeout or schedule plus grace period.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	No	Exact check slug to match, using lowercase letters, numbers, hyphens, or underscores.
`tags`	No	Tags that every returned check must have, for example ["production", "backup"].
`limit`	No	Maximum number of checks to return, from 1 to 100.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`meta`	Yes
`checks`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.1Sep 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / limit / description

Added value: +"Maximum number of checks to return, from 1 to 100."

addedInput schema / properties / slug / description

Added value: +"Exact check slug to match, using lowercase letters, numbers, hyphens, or underscores."

addedInput schema / properties / tags / description

Added value: +"Tags that every returned check must have, for example [\"production\", \"backup\"]."

First observedv1.0.0Sep 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context about how pings arm checks and expectations after timeout/schedule plus grace period, but it does not disclose tool-specific behavior such as sorting, pagination, or response shape beyond the existing schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action, resource, and filters. The second sentence is concise and adds useful domain context, though it is somewhat tangential to actually invoking list_checks.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a low-complexity, read-only list operation with a fully described input schema, an output schema, and complete annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It specifies project scope and filtering, though explicit sibling differentiation would make it fully self-contained.

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%, with slug, tags, and limit each already described in the input schema. The description only restates the slug/tags filter idea and adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a precise action and resource: 'List checks in this Watchgoose project'. It also states the optional filters (slug or tags), and the collection-scope wording naturally distinguishes this from the sibling tools get_check and list_flips.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage through 'optionally filtered by slug or tags', but it never explicitly contrasts this tool with get_check or list_flips. There is no when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, only a clear statement of what the tool does.

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

Deploy Server