Taseli

Stop following a competitor

remove_competitor

DestructiveIdempotent

Stops watching a competitor (or turns down a suggested one). The ads collected so far stay in the history and it can be added back any time. Owner, admin or manager only.

Tool call template

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": {
      "competitor": "<competitor>"
    },
    "name": "remove_competitor"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`language`	No	Answer language. The business's language by default.
`competitor`	Yes	A competitor's id or name as Taseli shows it; a partial name works when it matches one competitor.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	A plain note instead of data (nothing connected yet, not available here).
`error`	No	Why nothing was done, as a short code.
`truncated`	No
`truncatedNote`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With destructiveHint=true already declared, the description does real work by clarifying that collected ads remain in history and the competitor can be re-added — i.e. the destruction is only of the follow relationship, not of data. It also discloses the authorization prerequisite (owner, admin or manager), which annotations do not carry.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, action stated first, followed by consequence and then permission requirement. Every sentence contributes new information and nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety and idempotency, so the description only needs to fill behavioral gaps — which it does via reversibility, data retention, and permission scope. Only the 'turns down a suggested one' mechanic is left slightly vague given no suggestion-related tool is named.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both the competitor identifier and the language enum. The description adds no extra meaning about how a competitor is matched or what 'turns down a suggested one' means for the input. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Stops watching a competitor') and adds a second scope ('or turns down a suggested one'), which lets an agent distinguish it from add_competitor and list_competitors. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Gives useful implied context — this is reversible ('it can be added back any time') and restricted to owner/admin/manager — but never says when to prefer it over alternatives such as add_competitor or when removal is inappropriate. Permission gating and reversibility implicitly guide usage.

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

All Taseli tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?