Retrieve a full change-detection watch by UUID to inspect its settings, restock and LLM fields, and history timestamps for monitoring or troubleshooting.
Get one watch by UUID. GET /api/v1/watch/{uuid}. Returns the full watch JSON including restock and LLM fields when present. Nested history maps become timestamp lists. Server filesystem paths are discarded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | Watch UUID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: the response is the full watch JSON, restock and LLM fields appear only when present, nested history maps are flattened into timestamp lists, and server filesystem paths are stripped. These transformations would otherwise surprise an agent parsing the result.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and key, then endpoint, then return shape, then transformation caveats. No filler and each sentence adds information.
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?
With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return payload and its transformations, which is the main risk for a single-parameter read tool. It stops short of noting failure behavior for an unknown UUID, a minor remaining 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 coverage is 100% and the single uuid parameter is documented with a regex pattern in the schema, so the schema carries the load. The description adds only the phrase 'by UUID' and no format, error, or lookup semantics beyond what the schema states.
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 ('Get'), resource ('one watch'), and lookup key ('by UUID'), and even names the underlying endpoint. This is clearly distinguishable from list_watches (browsing) and get_tag/get_snapshot (other resources) in the sibling set.
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 'by UUID' phrasing implicitly signals retrieval of a known watch rather than enumeration, so usage is inferable. But no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., use list_watches to discover UUIDs) is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.