remove_watchRemove an IOC from the real-time watch-list using its watch_id, stopping further alerts for that indicator. Use after an IOC no longer requires monitoring.
Remove an IOC from the real-time watch-list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| watch_id | Yes | The ID returned by add_watch (or shown in list_watches). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation and notes the watch-list is real-time, but it doesn't address reversibility, side effects on active monitoring, or whether removal requires authorization. The output schema is present, but behavioral context for a mutation tool remains thin.
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?
A single efficient sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter removal tool, though it could front-load a bit more operational context.
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?
With an output schema and full parameter coverage, the definition is minimally complete, but for a mutation tool with no annotations it should convey more about effects and prerequisites. It does enough for an agent to act but leaves behavioral questions unanswered.
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%, and the schema itself explains watch_id originates from add_watch or list_watches. The description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the work.
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?
States a specific verb (remove) and resource (IOC from the real-time watch-list), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_watch and list_watches. The action and target are unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly reference the sibling relationship.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent could infer it's the inverse of add_watch, but the description doesn't say so, and no preconditions or context for removal are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.