AstraEye Labs

Remove from the watchlist

remove_from_watchlist

DestructiveIdempotent

Removes assets from the member's watchlist, by assetId (list_watchlist). This also deletes what the member recorded for them there (quantity, cost basis, note), so call it only when the member asked to remove these assets. All removed together or none; an asset not on the watchlist is reported, not refused.

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": {
      "assetIds": "<assetIds>"
    },
    "name": "remove_from_watchlist"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`assetIds`	Yes	The assets to remove, by assetId. From find_assets or list_watchlist; at most 25.
`clientRequestId`	No	Optional UUID you generate for this request. Retrying with the same id never does it twice.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses exactly what collateral data is lost (quantity, cost basis, note), the atomicity guarantee ("all removed together or none"), and the non-obvious partial-failure behavior (missing assets are reported, not refused). This is precisely the behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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 compact sentences with zero waste, ordered from action to consequence to usage condition. The destructive consequence is front-loaded immediately after the action rather than buried.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, data loss, atomicity, and the missing-asset outcome — everything an agent needs to call it safely and interpret the result. Nothing material is left to inference.

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%, and the assetIds description already states the source tools and the 25-item cap, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description reinforces "by assetId" and points at list_watchlist, but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb (removes) and resource (assets from the member's watchlist) and names the keying parameter (assetId). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling add_to_watchlist by direction, and the parenthetical reference to list_watchlist anchors the resource unambiguously.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not rule: "call it only when the member asked to remove these assets," which is a real guardrail for an agent on a destructive tool. It also names list_watchlist as the way to obtain valid assetIds, covering the preconditions an agent needs before calling.

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

All AstraEye Labs 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?