remove_competitorStop tracking a competitor. Its ads leave the brand's competitor feed; the credits spent adding it are not refunded. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brandId | No | A brand id from get_workspace or list_brands, or the brand's name. Omit it when the organization has a single brand. | |
| competitorId | Yes | A competitor id from list_competitors. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| removed | Yes | ||
| competitorId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / brandId / descriptionPrevious value: -"A brand id from get_workspace or list_brands. Omit it when the organization has a single brand."New value: +"A brand id from get_workspace or list_brands, or the brand's name. Omit it when the organization has a single brand."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the concrete effect (ads leave the brand's competitor feed), the irreversibility of spend (credits not refunded), and that removal itself costs nothing.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then consequences, then cost. No filler and no repetition of schema or annotation content.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover destructiveness and idempotency. The description fills the remaining gap – what is actually lost by removing – though it doesn't say whether re-adding later re-incurs cost.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both brandId and competitorId already documented including sourcing (get_workspace, list_brands, list_competitors) and the single-brand omission rule. The description adds nothing about parameters, so baseline 3 applies.
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 combination ('Stop tracking a competitor') that clearly separates it from its sibling add_competitor. It doesn't name the sibling, but the pairing is unambiguous in context.
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?
Usage is implied by the semantics of 'stop tracking', and 'Free' hints there's no credit cost to removing, but the description never states when to prefer this over alternatives or what prerequisites exist (e.g., needing a competitorId from list_competitors).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.