watch_testToggle whether a specific test is watched in a project, so you can track and review it via the watched list.
Watch (watching: true) or stop watching (watching: false) a test for yourself. Watched tests are listed by list_test_controls with view "watched".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| watching | Yes | ||
| projectId | Yes | Project ID (e.g. project_<id>) | |
| testcase_id | Yes | Playwright pw_test_id of the test |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations mark this as non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: it is a per-user toggle ("for yourself") whose effect surfaces in a specific list view. It does not mention permissions or whether watching is idempotent, but the behavioral picture is solid.
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?
Two short sentences, zero waste, with the toggle semantics front-loaded and the downstream listing detail second. Nothing should be cut.
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 carries the burden of explaining the effect, and it does so by naming the view where the result appears. That is sufficient for a simple toggle, though a note on persistence or per-user scope limits would round it out.
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 67% with projectId and testcase_id already documented in the schema. The description supplies the missing semantic for the undocumented 'watching' parameter by spelling out what true and false each do, which is exactly the gap the schema leaves.
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 (watch/stop watching) and resource (a test), and clarifies the boolean semantics inline. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling mutators, but the watch/unwatch action is unambiguous enough that no sibling could be confused for it.
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?
Explains the trigger condition for each mode (watching: true vs false) and points to list_test_controls with view "watched" as the way to observe the result. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.