usom-mcp

Watch Remove

watch_remove

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove entries from the local watch list to stop monitoring specific domains, IP addresses, or networks for malicious links.

Instructions

Remove entries from the local watch list.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`values`	Yes	Entries to remove from the watch list.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`total`	Yes
`removed`	Yes
`rejected`	Yes
`not_found`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as what happens to missing entries, whether the operation is silent, or any rate limits.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema, existing output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description states the core action. However, it omits usage guidance and sibling differentiation, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the schema's meaning without adding syntax, limitations, or format details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: remove entries from the local watch list. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as watch_add or watch_list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternatives to prefer. The description only restates the action without providing context for invocation.

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

Deploy Server