Skip to main content
Glama

Unwatch product

watchlist.remove
DestructiveIdempotent

Remove one product from the bound account's watchlist.

When to use: Use when a person asks to stop watching a product. Future alerts stop; everything already delivered stays.

What it cannot provide: It cannot delete an account, cancel a subscription, or remove history. Removing a watch never removes what was already sent.

Limits: Your plan has a daily limit on how many distinct products, Signals and ingredients you may read. Repeating a question about the same product costs nothing extra; reading many different products costs one each. Do not iterate through products, aliases, or date windows to assemble a copy of the Record: it is refused, scored, and can suspend the key.

FormulaSignal covers a defined, counted set of U.S. pre-workout products. Coverage is not the whole category, and a product being absent from coverage says nothing about that product. Every response carries a status. supported means the Record answered. partial, stale, under_review, ambiguous and unsupported are all real answers about the Record and none of them is a fact about the product: report them as what FormulaSignal holds, never as what is true of the product. Read limitations and repeat what applies. An observation date is when a source was read, not when a change was made, and an observation window is not an exact reformulation date. Nothing here is medical advice or a suitability judgement for any person.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
product_idYesThe canonical product id to stop watching.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoPresent only on a refusal: code, message, and what to do next.
watchNoThe bound account's watchlist or monitoring receipt.
ledgerNo
statusYesWhat kind of answer this is. Every value except `supported` is still a real answer about the Record rather than a fact about the product.
historyNoDated product states, oldest first.
productNoThe covered product the answer is about, when there is exactly one.
signalsNoApproved Signals: confirmed, reviewed changes.
summaryNoOne sentence saying what kind of answer this is.
coverageNo
productsNoCovered products named by the answer.
candidatesNoPresent when `status` is `ambiguous`. Pick one; never assume the first.
capabilityYesThe API capability that answered.
comparisonNo
confidenceNo
disclaimerNo
request_idYesQuote this if you contact support.
limitationsNoAlways present, including when empty. Read it and repeat what applies.
next_cursorNoPass back as `cursor` for the next page. Null on the last page.
calculationsNoDeterministic arithmetic FormulaSignal performed, with its operands.
record_as_ofNoThe Record's as-of date, YYYY-MM-DD.
record_versionNoThe Record data-state id. Two answers sharing it came from one committed state.
verified_factsNoWhat a captured source literally declares.
commercial_factsNoDated commercial observations, each with its price basis.
record_timestampNoThe newest dated observation the Record holds. Deliberately not "now".
research_contextNoDose ranges from the selected evidence set, with citations.
source_referencesNoCitations a reader can open: publisher, URL, observation date.
regulatory_recordsNoFilings and records, each labelled with the class of record it is.
documented_cautionsNoDocumented cautions, kept apart from filings.
methodology_versionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true. The description adds significant context: 'Future alerts stop; everything already delivered stays.' It also details the daily limit on reading distinct products and warns against iterating to assemble a Record, which is a behavioral constraint beyond the annotation. However, it does not explicitly mention the idempotent nature of the operation, but the annotation already covers that, so no contradiction.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise and well-organized: the first line states the main action, followed by a 'When to use' section, then 'What it cannot provide', then 'Limits' and 'FormulaSignal' sections. It is front-loaded and each section adds value. However, there is a minor inefficiency: the 'FormulaSignal' section is extensive and covers broader platform context that may not be strictly necessary for calling this specific tool. It still earns a 4 for its overall clarity and structure.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With one required parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema (not described but present), the description covers the tool's purpose, usage, limits, and exclusions. However, the 'FormulaSignal' section introduces concepts like 'status' and 'limitations' that may be overkill for this simple mutation tool, but they do not omit essential information. The tool is simple enough that the description is more than sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema description for product_id is 100% covered with 'The canonical product id to stop watching.' The description does not add any further parameter-specific details, but given full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 primary action: 'Remove one product from the bound account's watchlist.' It identifies the verb (remove), the resource (watchlist), and the scope (one product from the bound account). It also clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like watchlist.add and watchlist.list, making its purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use: 'Use when a person asks to stop watching a product.' It also provides clear exclusions: 'It cannot delete an account, cancel a subscription, or remove history.' This goes beyond typical guidance by directly addressing what the tool cannot do, setting accurate expectations.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources