Retrieve your saved carrier watchlists to review monitored motor carriers and manage your tracking lists.
List your own carrier watchlists.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_watchlists"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes only the 'your own' scoping hint; it says nothing about result volume, pagination, or whether empty results are possible for a read-only listing.
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 six-word sentence with zero waste and the scope qualifier front-loaded. It is arguably too sparse to be maximally useful, but nothing is padded or buried.
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 parameters, no output schema and annotations covering safety, the remaining gap is what a watchlist record actually contains and whether the list is paginated. For a simple listing tool this is a minor but real omission.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies, and the description does not contradict the empty schema.
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+resource ('List ... watchlists') and adds the scope qualifier 'your own carrier'. This lets an agent distinguish it from the singular get_watchlist and from create_watchlist/add_watch_target, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 phrase 'your own' implies usage scoped to the authenticated user's lists, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of how this differs from get_watchlist (single item) or list_watch_events. Usage must be inferred from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.