Lists active watches and hooks in a running UE4SS game, showing label, kind, target, interval, events, and status. Use it to inspect the current monitoring setup without modifying anything.
Watches and hooks currently running: {label, kind, target, interval_ms, events, started, active, lost}. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so well by explicitly stating 'Read-only.' It also reveals that only currently running watches/hooks are shown and lists the fields that will appear. This is sufficient transparency for a simple listing operation.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs the output fields into a compact list. Every element earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition.
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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides enough information to call and interpret the result: what is listed, which field names to expect, and that it is read-only. Minor ambiguity remains around terminology such as 'streams' versus 'watches and hooks,' but overall the definition is adequate.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The field list in the description adds useful context about what the response contains, which is more than baseline for a parameterless tool.
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 identifies the resource as currently running watches and hooks and enumerates the fields returned. It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools like watch_property, hook_function, and stop_stream. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'list' or 'enumerate', but the meaning is unambiguous.
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 phrase 'currently running' implies this tool is for inspecting active watches/hooks rather than creating or removing them. However, it does not explicitly reference sibling tools or state when to choose this over alternatives such as poll_events or stop_stream. Usage guidance is therefore only implied, not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.