Adjust a monitoring watch interval while preserving its pending scan and seen versions, so you can change alert frequency without losing tracking state.
Change a watch interval without discarding its pending scan or seen versions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| watch_id | Yes | ||
| interval_seconds | 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 already flag a non-destructive mutation (destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the pending scan and seen versions survive the change. It stops short of noting idempotency or what happens if interval_seconds is unchanged.
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 zero filler. The preservation guarantee is stated immediately after the action, which is the right ordering for an agent deciding whether this tool is safe.
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, and the safety profile is covered by annotations plus the preservation clause. However, for a two-parameter mutation with no schema descriptions, the missing parameter guidance leaves a real gap.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does not. It never names watch_id or interval_seconds, gives no units, and omits the 60–604800 second bounds and the 32-hex-char watch_id pattern.
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 and resource ('Change a watch interval') and adds a scope qualifier that distinguishes it from a delete-and-recreate workflow. It does not name a sibling tool, but the mutation target 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?
Usage is implied: use this to alter an existing watch's interval rather than recreating it. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over dv_watch_delete plus 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.