homebutler

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

watch_remove

Destructive

Remove a target from the watch list without deleting its incident history; monitoring continues until an operator stops it.

Instructions

Remove a target from the watch list, leaving its recorded incidents in place. Only the list changes: whatever was supervising it keeps running until the operator stops it

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": {
      "container": "<container>"
    },
    "name": "watch_remove"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`server`	No	Remote server name from config (optional, runs locally if omitted)
`container`	Yes	Name to stop watching

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.31.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnly=false; the description adds the crucial qualifier that the destruction is limited to the list entry — recorded incidents are preserved and whatever was supervising the target keeps running. That refines the blast radius in a way the annotations cannot express, though it does not cover error behavior (e.g. name not currently watched).

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?

Two short sentences with the primary effect first and the clarification second; every clause carries 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?

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the one non-obvious fact an agent needs — that removal is not the same as stopping supervision. Only the outcome when the target is absent from the list is left unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the optional remote-server scope and the local fallback. The description adds no format, matching, or identifier-syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Remove a target from the watch list") and immediately scopes what removal means. It is clearly distinguishable from watch_add/watch_list/watch_history by implication, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied — you call it to stop watching a target — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives for temporarily muting versus permanently unwatching. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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