Skip to main content
Glama

glimind

by io.github.shawndei

watch_tool

Subscribe to reliability alerts for one or more tools (or all critical outages). Provide a webhook URL (generic, Slack, or Discord — auto-detected) to receive PUSH alerts, or omit it to get a pull token you poll with get_notifications (no inbound URL needed — ideal for agents). Call this to be told the moment a tool you depend on breaks or recovers. Returns a token to manage/poll the subscription.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolsNoMultiple tools to watch.
toolIdNoA tool to watch ('server' or 'server/tool_name').
webhookNoOptional push URL (generic/Slack/Discord). Omit for a pull token.
allCriticalNoWatch ALL critical breakages across the ecosystem.
minSeverityNo'warning' (default) or 'critical'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description fully explains the behavior: subscribes to alerts, offers push (webhook) or pull (token) modes, auto-detects webhook type, and returns a token for management. It does not disclose limits or idempotency, but for a subscription tool the behavioral coverage is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is 4 sentences, concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The structure flows logically from what the tool does to how to use it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description mentions the return token but lacks detail on token format or management beyond 'poll with get_notifications'. It fails to explain the minSeverity parameter, which is important for controlling alert severity. The description is mostly complete for the two main modes but has a notable gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already covers all 5 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the webhook/token trade-off, auto-detection, and the relationship to get_notifications. However, it does not elaborate on the minSeverity parameter or the distinction between toolId and tools.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool subscribes to reliability alerts for tools or all critical outages, with a specific verb 'subscribe' and resource 'tools'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_notifications (for polling) and unwatch (for unsubscribing) by explaining both push and pull modes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use the tool: to be notified immediately of breakages or recoveries. It contrasts push vs pull modes and references get_notifications for polling. However, it does not explicitly contrast with check_tool_reliability or list_breakages, leaving some ambiguity about when those alternatives are better.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All glimind toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct, well-defined purpose: checking reliability, discovering tools, finding alternatives, getting recipes, routing tasks, etc. No two tools overlap in function.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., check_tool_reliability, route_task, watch_tool). The only minor deviation is 'how_to_use_glimind', which still follows a clear verb phrase convention.

Tool Count5/5

With 15 tools, the set is well-scoped for a comprehensive meta-layer covering discovery, reliability checking, preparation, batch routing, reporting, and notifications. Each tool earns its place.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full workflow of discovering, checking, preparing, calling, and reporting on tools. A minor gap is the lack of a direct 'list all tools' catalog, but the discovery tools effectively fill this need.

Resources