remove_favorite
Tira um canal dos favoritos do dono.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel_id | Yes | Canal a desfavoritar, ex. `Globo.br`. |
grade
by net.gradetv
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Changed1 schema field changed
- added
Input schema / properties / channel_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Canal a desfavoritar, ex. `Globo.br`."
- First observed
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states the basic action but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, error handling, or permission requirements. For a mutation operation, this is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the essential information. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks guidance on usage conditions and behavioral details. It provides the core action but not enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke it or what to expect.
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?
The schema already documents the single parameter with 100% coverage, including an example. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the action. Since the schema covers the parameter, the description's contribution is minimal.
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?
The description clearly states the action (remove) and the resource (a channel from the owner's favorites), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_favorite and list_favorites by indicating the removal operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and sibling context, but no explicit direction is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool addresses a distinct resource/action: favorites vs. history vs. watch recording are clearly separate, and the NSFW consent/pass tools are unambiguous. Even closely related tools like 'get_channel', 'get_channel_guide', and 'legacy_stream' serve different purposes. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, add_, remove_, etc.) with clear conventions. A few exceptions exist like 'billing', 'geo', 'health', and 'me', which are nouns and break the pattern slightly, but the overall style is predictable and readable.
Tool Count2/5
With 47 tools, the server is far beyond the typical well-scoped range (3-15). While the API covers a broad domain (auth, catalog, chat, comments, billing, NSFW), this many tools would be better split into smaller, focused servers. The count feels bloated and could overwhelm an agent.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface is quite comprehensive for a streaming service: it includes auth, user preferences, favorites, history, catalog search, channel details, comments, chat, NSFW consent/passes, billing, and reporting. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update/delete for categories/groups, no comment editing), but these are not critical dead ends.