Configure a local watchlist for multiple chat groups by selecting sessions, keywords, and senders. Use replace=true to update and rebuild baseline, or paused=true to pause.
在本机保存多群关注列表。指定会话、关键词和人物；replace=true修改现有列表并重建基线，paused=true暂停。仅配置，不自动运行或发通知。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| paused | No | ||
| replace | No | ||
| keywords | No | ||
| match_mode | No | ||
| sender_ids | No | ||
| session_ids | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already state it's not read-only and not destructive, which the description aligns with. It adds behavioral detail about replace=true rebuilding the baseline and pausing, plus explicitly notes it doesn't run automatically or notify—useful context beyond the annotation booleans. No contradictions detected.
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?
Two concise sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every clause adds value: the action, the key inputs, the toggles, and the non-execution caveat. Zero filler.
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?
The tool has 8 params and no output schema. The description covers the essential behavior (save, modify, pause) and clarifies it's a configuration action without immediate side effects. It leaves some parameter details to the schema, which is acceptable given the schema is available. It's adequately complete for an agent to decide when to call it.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains replace and paused and maps 'sessions, keywords, persons' to the relevant parameters (session_ids, keywords, sender_ids). However, it doesn't cover id, name, or match_mode, though the latter has an enum that is self-explanatory. Partial coverage of the 8 parameters earns a 3.
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 states the tool saves a watchlist locally ('在本机保存多群关注列表'), specifying the key inputs (sessions, keywords, persons). It differentiates from siblings like list_watchlists, poll_watchlist, and read_watchlist_batch by emphasizing this is configuration-only, giving a distinct verb-resource pairing.
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 explicitly says '仅配置，不自动运行或发通知' (config-only, no auto-run or notifications), making it clear this is for setup rather than execution. It mentions replace and paused behaviors, which informs usage for creating vs. updating. It doesn't name alternatives explicitly, but the context with sibling tools like poll_watchlist and list_watchlists implies the distinction well enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.