Retrieves the owner's saved watches with continuation status, coverage details, and last error. Use it to monitor watch tracking and diagnose failures.
List only this owner's saved watches, their continuation, coverage and last error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact – that results are restricted to the invoking owner – but says nothing about ordering, rate limits, or what an empty list means.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scope qualifier ('only this owner's') appears before the returned fields, which is the right ordering.
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 not be re-explained, and annotations carry the safety profile; for a zero-parameter read tool this is nearly complete. The only gap is the absence of any routing hint among the many dv_watch_* siblings.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and 100% covered; the description correctly adds no parameter detail because there is none to add.
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 ('List') and resource ('this owner's saved watches'), and names the fields it surfaces (continuation, coverage, last error). An agent can distinguish it from dv_watch_events or dv_watch_check, though the description never explicitly names those siblings to reinforce the distinction.
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?
'only this owner's' is a scoping statement, not usage guidance. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over dv_watch_events, dv_watch_check, or dv_watch_create, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.