Acknowledge received watch events for the authenticated owner by event ID; repeated calls are idempotent, so retries do not create duplicates.
Acknowledge only this owner's received events; retries are idempotent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_ids | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| warnings | No | ||
| schema_version | No | 1.0 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare idempotentHint=false, yet the description asserts 'retries are idempotent' – a direct conflict on the single most important behavior for a retry-prone ack call. It also omits whether acks are persistent or auth is required despite openWorldHint=true. This is an annotation contradiction.
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?
A single tight sentence with a front-loaded verb and a secondary constraint; nothing is padded. 'Only this owner's' is slightly awkward phrasing but still information-bearing.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a mutating tool with an open-world hint and an undocumented required array parameter, the description should clarify scope, expected id range, and auth/permission needs. It resolves none of these.
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?
There is one parameter (event_ids) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: it mentions 'events' generically but never explains that event_ids is a 1–100 element array of string identifiers, nor their format.
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?
States a specific verb ('acknowledge') and resource ('received events'), plus an ownership scope ('only this owner's'). It is decipherable against siblings like dv_watch_events and dv_watch_delete, though it never names an alternative to sharpen the boundary.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to acknowledge versus re-reading via dv_watch_events, deleting via dv_watch_delete, or checking via dv_watch_check. The watch-workflow context ('received events') implicitly suggests post-consumption use, but no condition or exclusion is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.