Acknowledge a processed watch batch to atomically advance subscription positions, preventing reprocessing while keeping checkpoints durable.
Confirm a processed batch and atomically advance its subscription positions.
Only acknowledge after processing its messages and omissions. A duplicate acknowledgement is safe; an old ID cannot acknowledge a newer pending batch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| batch_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation declares idempotentHint=false, but the description says 'A duplicate acknowledgement is safe,' which implies idempotent behavior and directly conflicts with the annotation. Although it adds useful atomicity and old-ID constraints, the contradiction is serious.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core action and uses three compact sentences with no wasted wording. Each sentence adds either the main purpose, a precondition, or a safety constraint.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action, precondition, and key state constraints. However, it leaves the name parameter unexplained and contains an idempotency inconsistency against the annotations, so it is only adequately complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It hints at batch_id semantics via 'an old ID cannot acknowledge a newer pending batch,' but never explains the required name parameter or its relationship to the subscription being acknowledged.
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 states a specific verb and resource: confirming a processed batch and atomically advancing subscription positions. It clearly distinguishes this acknowledgement operation from read-oriented siblings such as get_watch_changes and get_changes.
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?
It explicitly says to acknowledge only after processing messages and omissions, which gives clear usage context. It also adds state constraints about duplicate acknowledgements and old IDs, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.