remove_competitorStop tracking one competitor by name, as get_project_business_context lists it, so visibility reads no longer rank it. Recorded answers are kept. Runs at once and cannot be undone; add_competitor tracks it again but its aliases and domains must be given again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The tracked competitor name, ignoring case. | |
| project_id | Yes | A project id that list_projects returned. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds materially more: recorded answers survive the removal, the change applies immediately with no confirmation step, it cannot be undone, and re-adding is lossy for aliases/domains. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before an irreversible write.
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 sentences, zero filler, and the ordering is deliberate: action and scope first, what is preserved second, irreversibility and the recovery path last. Every clause carries decision-relevant information.
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?
For a two-parameter destructive write with no output schema, the description covers what is removed, what is retained, the immediacy and irreversibility of the effect, and how to reverse it. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond by telling the agent where to source a valid competitor name (get_project_business_context), which the schema's 'tracked competitor name' wording does not. It adds no format detail beyond that.
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 ('stop tracking') and resource ('one competitor'), scoped to a single entity by name. It is immediately distinguishable from add_competitor and from read_* siblings that surface visibility 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?
Tells the agent where the valid name comes from ('as get_project_business_context lists it') and names the reversing alternative (add_competitor) along with the caveat that aliases and domains must be re-supplied. Both the when and the undo path are explicit.
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.