Stop and remove a watch. Its recorded changes stay readable. Cannot be undone.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "delete-watch"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | watch id | |
| idempotency_key | No | safe-retry key |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the two most important facts: the operation is irreversible and the recorded changes survive the deletion. It says nothing about permissions required, what happens if the watch is currently running or the id is unknown, or whether a response body is returned.
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 with zero filler, and the most decision-critical fact (irreversibility) lands in the final, emphatic position while the core action is front-loaded.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential consequences of the call. The remaining gap is error/edge-case behavior (unknown id, running watch), which is secondary but would round it out fully.
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%, so the two parameters are already documented in structured form, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no meaning about the id (e.g. format, where to source it) or about idempotency_key's retry semantics beyond what the schema says.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ("Stop and remove a watch"), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the create/get/list siblings. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to route against, but the destructive verb pair alone separates it from the read-oriented siblings.
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?
"Cannot be undone" implicitly tells the agent this is only for permanent removal, which is real decision-relevant guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus keeping the watch, nor any prerequisite checks (e.g. verifying the id exists via get-watch) before calling it.
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.