Comunio MCP

Watch a player

watch_player

Idempotent

Add a player to your watchlist to track them without spending or committing. Use player IDs from market, squad, or standings views.

Instructions

Add a player to the manager's watchlist.

Harmless: it commits nothing and spends nothing, it only marks the player as one to keep an eye on. Ids come from get_market, get_squad or get_standings.

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": {
      "player_id": "<player_id>"
    },
    "name": "watch_player"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`player_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	Whether Comunio accepted the change
`watching`	Yes	Whether the player is now being watched
`player_id`	Yes	Player added to or removed from the watchlist

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=falsechers. The description adds domain-level transparency: 'commits nothing and spends nothing, it only marks the player.' This meaningfully clarifies the side-effect profile beyond the raw hint flags.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tight sentences plus a short domain-level clarification. The core action is first, the side-effect note is second, and the ID-source pointer is last. No fluff.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Complete for a one-parameter, idempotent, non-destructive tool with an output schema. It covers the effect, the safety profile, and where to get the only argument; nothing material is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by telling the agent player_id values come from get_market, get_squad, or get_standings. The meaning of 'player ID' is not deeply expanded, but the source guidance is exactly what an agent needs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States exactly what it does with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a player to the manager's watchlist.' This is unambiguous and clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_watchlist.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Clearly implies when to use it: when a player should be monitored. It also tells the agent where valid IDs come from (get_market, get_squad, get_standings). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops one step short of a 5.

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