remove_from_watchlist監視リストから削除します。登録されていないコードは notFound に入ります（エラーにはしません）。 category（favorite = お気に入り（ポートフォリオ）、watching = 監視）で、どちらから外すかを指定できます。 省略したときは、その銘柄が片方の分類にしか無ければそちらから外し、両方にあればエラーで category の指定を求めます（何も削除しません）。
※ 本データは情報提供を目的とし、投資助言・推奨ではありません。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| codes | Yes | 削除する証券コードの配列 | |
| category | No | どちらの分類から外すか（任意）。favorite = お気に入り（ポートフォリオ）、watching = 監視 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / categoryAdded value: +{
+ "description": "どちらの分類から外すか（任意）。favorite = お気に入り（ポートフォリオ）、watching = 監視",
+ "enum": [
+ "favorite",
+ "watching"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses important behavior: unregistered codes land in notFound rather than erroring, and the ambiguous-category case fails atomically with '何も削除しません' (nothing deleted). This partial-failure and atomicity context is exactly what a mutation tool needs.
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 purpose and category behavior are front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing investment-advice disclaimer is boilerplate that does not help tool selection. Still, the core content is tight and well-ordered.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description adequately covers side effects, partial-failure handling, and the ambiguous-category branch. It stops short of stating authorization/permission requirements, a minor remaining gap.
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, but the description adds the default/omitted behavior for category (remove from the single matching classification, or error if in both) which the schema does not express. It meaningfully augments the enum's semantics.
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 ('監視リストから削除します' – remove from watchlist), making it immediately distinguishable from add_to_watchlist, get_watchlist, and update_watchlist_note. An agent can select this tool without opening the schema.
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?
It explains the conditional use of category: specify it to pick a classification, omit it when the stock is in only one, and it will error requiring category when the stock is in both. This is clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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.