Divar Intelligence MCP

dv_watch_ack

Acknowledge received watch events for the authenticated owner by event ID; repeated calls are idempotent, so retries do not create duplicates.

Instructions

Acknowledge only this owner's received events; retries are idempotent.

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": {
      "event_ids": "<event_ids>"
    },
    "name": "dv_watch_ack"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`event_ids`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Default
`data`	Yes
`warnings`	No
`schema_version`	No	1.0

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does 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.

Conciseness4/5

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.

Completeness2/5

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.

Parameters2/5

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.

Purpose4/5

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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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.