Run active monitoring watchers to check ontology health. Optionally add new watchers via inline JSON and receive ok, alert, or blocked status with details.
Run active monitoring watchers. Optionally add new watchers via inline JSON. Returns ok/alert/blocked status with details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| watchers | No | Inline JSON array of watchers to add, or omit to just run existing watchers |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description reveals the return status ('ok/alert/blocked') and the ability to add watchers. However, it does not disclose behavioral aspects like side effects, destructive nature, or authentication requirements, which are important given the absence of annotations.
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 concise with three short sentences that front-load the core purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or extraneous 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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and return type. It lacks details on JSON formatting for new watchers and precise return fields, but is otherwise complete enough for basic use.
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 input schema covers 100% of parameters and already explains the 'watchers' parameter. The description merely echoes the schema's information without adding new semantic meaning, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly specifies the action ('run active monitoring watchers') and the resource, with optional adding of new watchers. It distinguishes itself from siblings like onto_monitor_clear by focusing on running and adding watchers.
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?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., onto_monitor_clear). There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.