Lists watched skills alongside current hashes and last-change timestamps to show what an agent depends on.
List watched skills with current hash and last change
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_watches"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden. "List" implies a non-mutating read, but nothing is said about permissions, ordering, whether stale or missing hashes appear, or how last-change timestamps are derived, so the behavioral picture is thin.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource and appending the returned fields. Nothing in it could be removed without losing information.
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?
For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers both what is listed and the two key fields returned, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of describing ordering or handling of unwatched/removed skills.
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 schema declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies an unfiltered full listing rather than suggesting options that do not 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?
The description gives a specific verb plus resource ("List watched skills") and adds the payload contents ("current hash and last change"), so an agent can tell this is a read of the watch registry rather than an action on it. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like watch, changes, or versions, which keeps it short of a 5.
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: an agent can infer it should call this to see which skills are currently under watch. There is no statement of when not to use it, no mention of watch or changes as alternatives for adding or comparing watches, and no prerequisites named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.