Remove a source from a Watcher by source id. (A source-less Watcher ingests nothing — usually you want watcher_delete.) Not metered. (requires a free Prowlo account — call it to get a signup link)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sourceId | Yes | Source id to remove (from the Watcher’s sources list) | |
| watcherId | Yes | Watcher id the source belongs to (from list_watchers) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the consequence that a source-less Watcher 'ingests nothing' and the recommendation to use watcher_delete instead. It also discloses that the operation is not metered and requires an account. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded. The core purpose is in the first sentence, with two parentheticals adding essential guidance and prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place without fluff.
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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the side effect, the alternative tool, and account requirements. It does not describe the return value or error behavior, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity and available annotations.
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 parameters (sourceId, watcherId) clearly described in the schema. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating 'by source id' and confirming that sourceId refers to the source to remove. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Remove a source from a Watcher by source id.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and immediately differentiates from the sibling tool watcher_delete by warning that a source-less Watcher ingests nothing and that watcher_delete is usually preferred.
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?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'A source-less Watcher ingests nothing — usually you want watcher_delete.' This tells the agent when NOT to use this tool and points to the correct alternative. It also notes 'Not metered' and the requirement for a free Prowlo account, which are relevant operational conditions.
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.
Several tool pairs have overlapping purposes: keyword_* and tag_rule_* are duplicates, keyword_monitor_create is a shortcut for a subset of watcher_create, and alert_list vs get_alerts have confusingly similar names. Even though descriptions are detailed, the redundancy and naming overlap make it easy to pick the wrong tool.
The set mixes object-verb names (alert_create, watcher_create) with verb-object names (get_account, list_records) and prefix-based categories (social_*). The deprecated keyword_* tools are renamed tag_rule_*, and keyword_monitor_create doesn't follow the watcher_* pattern, creating an inconsistent naming scheme.
At 42 tools, the surface is far above the typical well-scoped range, with 5 deprecated tools and redundant paths like keyword_monitor_create vs watcher_create inflating the count. A leaner set focusing on core operations would be more manageable.
The Reddit/HN monitoring and alerting side is well covered with CRUD for watchers, tag rules, alerts, and trends plus dataset and social reads. However, the server advertises X support but has no X tools, and there's no way to post comments or manage integrations beyond viewing account info, leaving notable gaps.
