remove_watchlist_profilesRemoves the given profileIds from a watchlist and returns how many were removed plus the new profile count. Free to call. Use get_watchlist to find the profileIds. Cost: free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profileIds | Yes | Internal profile ids to remove | |
| watchlistId | Yes | Watchlist id |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals useful behavioral details beyond annotations: it returns 'how many were removed plus the new profile count' and states the call is free. Since annotations already show this is a non-read-only mutation, the description adds appropriate cost and return-value context without contradiction.
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 short and front-loaded with the core action and return behavior. There is minor redundancy between 'Free to call' and 'Cost: free', but overall it is compact and readable.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what it does, what it returns, cost, and how to obtain the required profileIds. No essential information 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 adds extra semantic value by pointing to get_watchlist as the source for obtaining profileIds, which helps the agent understand where the ID values come from.
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 uses a specific verb ('Removes'), a clear resource ('watchlist'), and explicit inputs ('given profileIds'), making it immediately obvious what the tool does. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_watchlist_profiles and delete_watchlist.
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 clear usage context by telling the agent to 'Use get_watchlist to find the profileIds', which is practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives or give exclusion criteria.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (search, profile management, post retrieval, async jobs, billing). Some overlap exists among get_trending_outliers, niche_trends, and search_outliers, but their descriptions differentiate free/unauthenticated, niche-specific, and filtered search, so an agent can usually pick correctly.
The vast majority of tool names follow a verb_noun pattern (crawl_profile, get_post, remix_post, track_profile). The main exception is 'niche_trends', which is a noun phrase, and the minor spelling of 'topup' instead of 'top_up'. Otherwise, naming is consistent enough to predict tool behavior.
At 21 tools, this is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the broad scope (search, crawling, tracking, media handling, transcripts, remixing, billing) justifies the number. Each tool serves a distinct function, and none feel redundant, so the count is reasonable for the domain.
The tool set covers the core workflow well: searching outliers, crawling/tracking profiles, fetching posts/media/transcripts, and generating remixes. However, there is no way to list all posts for a specific profile (only 'recent tracked posts' via get_profile and an incremental feed via get_tracked_updates), which is a notable gap for deep creator analysis.