grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

forms.forms.watches.list

Lists the watches for a specified form, showing active event notifications limited to one per event type. Returns JSON data for the invoking project's watches.

Instructions

Return a list of the watches owned by the invoking project. The maximum number of watches is two: For each invoker, the limit is one for each event type per form [HTTP GET]. Returns the requested resource as JSON — request bodies are built from the typed parameters (typed flags win over the params map), or read whole from body_file Siblings over the same resource: create, delete, renew.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	No	Extra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
`formId`	Yes	[URL path segment] Required. ID of the Form whose watches to list.
`params`	No	Parameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
`dry_run`	No	Return the request that would be sent, without sending it.
`body_file`	No	Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`watches`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / formId / description

Previous value: -"Required. ID of the Form whose watches to list."New value: +"[URL path segment] Required. ID of the Form whose watches to list."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "watches": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "createTime": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "errorType": {
+            "enum": [
+              "ERROR_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED",
+              "PROJECT_NOT_AUTHORIZED",
+              "NO_USER_ACCESS",
+              "OTHER_ERRORS"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "eventType": {
+            "enum": [
+              "EVENT_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED",
+              "SCHEMA",
+              "RESPONSES"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "expireTime": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "state": {
+            "enum": [
+              "STATE_UNSPECIFIED",
+              "ACTIVE",
+              "SUSPENDED"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "target": {
+            "properties": {
+              "topic": {
+                "properties": {
+                  "topicName": {
+                    "type": "string"
+                  }
+                },
+                "type": "object"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it usefully discloses the two-watch cap and the one-per-event-type-per-form limit. However, it omits permission/scope requirements and pagination behavior for a list endpoint, and its request-body boilerplate is irrelevant to an HTTP GET read.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The scope and watch-limit facts are front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is good. But the trailing explanation of how request bodies are built from typed parameters or body_file is boilerplate noise for a GET-only list operation and dilutes the useful content.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, return values need not be explained. The description supplies the key domain constraint (two-watch maximum) and siblings, so it is largely complete for a simple list operation.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description only restates the typed-parameters-vs-params-map and body_file mechanics, which duplicate schema text, and adds nothing about formId 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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource: list the watches owned by the invoking project, scoped to a Form. It names the sibling operations (create, delete, renew) over the same resource, so an agent can distinguish this from them.

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?

It names the sibling tools 'create, delete, renew' over the same resource, which helps route the agent, but it never states the condition that selects list versus those siblings or any prerequisites (e.g., which forms support watches). Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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

Deploy Server