@illodev/taiga-mcp

taiga_projects_watch

Set a watch level on a project to control notifications: all activity, only involved items, or none. Specify the project ID and notify level to update your subscription.

Instructions

Watch a project.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "taiga_projects_watch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Project ID
`notify_level`	No	1=all, 2=involved, 3=none

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that watching is a subscription action, whether repeated calls toggle the state, what authentication is needed, or what response is returned. This is a significant lack of transparency for a state-changing tool.

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 extremely concise—one short sentence with no wasted words. However, while brevity is positive, it under-specifies the tool's behavior and context, making it less effective than a slightly longer description would be.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides almost no contextual completeness. It doesn't explain what 'watching' entails, how notify_level influences behavior, the effect of calling it multiple times, or how it relates to the unwatch and watchers siblings. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with inline descriptions (e.g., notify_level '1=all, 2=involved, 3=none'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 description 'Watch a project' uses a specific verb and resource, making the primary action clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like taiga_projects_unwatch or taiga_projects_watchers beyond the verb itself, and the meaning of 'watch' is not elaborated.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description simply restates the tool's name without indicating scenarios, required permissions, or how it differs from unwatch or watcher listing tools.

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

Deploy Server