Checks whether file watching is currently enabled so clients can verify live build updates are active.
Check if file watching is currently enabled.
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": "watch_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a status check (read-only in nature), but does not disclose return format, potential side effects, or any expectations about the 'enabled' state. The description is minimal and doesn't add context beyond the obvious.
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?
The description is a single clear, front-loaded sentence. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler. It's an ideal length for such a simple status check.
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?
The tool is very simple (no parameters, no output schema). The description fully conveys the purpose. However, since there's no output schema, adding a note about the return value (e.g., boolean true/false) would make it more complete, but it's still adequate as is.
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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially fully covered. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist. The description doesn't need to add parameter details since there are none.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('check') and a clear resource ('file watching'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself nicely from sibling tools like start_watching and stop_watching, which are action-oriented, and get_recent_changes, which deals with different data.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states what it does but provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the tool's name and description, but there's no explicit recommendation or contrast with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.