Leadgen MCP

Stop watching a company or activity

unwatch

Idempotent

Remove a company CUI or CAEN activity code watch (with county) from your API key, deleting its baseline; if not watched, nothing is removed.

Instructions

Stop watching a company (cui) or a CAEN activity code (code, plus the county it was watched in, if any), on your API key: the watch and its baseline are removed. Unwatching something you do not watch changes nothing (removed: 0). poll_watchlist lists your active watches.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cui`	No	CUI of a watched firm (e.g. '2816464'); give this or code.
`code`	No	A watched CAEN activity code (e.g. '6210'); give this or cui.
`county`	No	With code: the county the code was watched in (diacritic-insensitive); omit for a nationwide watch.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	No	true when the request was valid.
`asOf`	No	What to cite: registry (ONRC snapshot date), financialYear (fiscal year of the figures), anaf (day of the ANAF data), snapshot, published, source.
`kind`	No	company or caen.
`error`	No	Set only when there is no answer (empty_query, invalid_cui, data_unavailable, plan_required ...); such a call is not counted.
`owner`	No	Whose watches these are (key prefix or IP).
`active`	No	The watches you still hold (as in poll_watchlist).
`county`	No	The CAEN watch's county; null for nationwide or a company.
`target`	No	The CUI or CAEN code.
`message`	No	A sentence for the caller.
`removed`	No	1 when the watch was removed, 0 when you did not hold it.
`attribution`	No	The credit line to keep when redistributing the data (CC BY 4.0).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.1.3Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description contradicts the destructiveHint: false annotation by stating that "the watch and its baseline are removed." Removing state is not an additive update, so the annotation and description are inconsistent. It also adds useful idempotence context ("removed: 0"), but the contradiction forces a 1 under the rules.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action, packs relevant scope and behavior into three short sentences, and none of the text is wasted.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers the key inputs, removal semantics, idempotence, API key scope, and the related poll_watchlist alternative, so an agent has enough context to call it correctly.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds only a light mapping (cui=company, code=CAEN activity code, county conditional), which does not go meaningfully beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ("Stop watching") and resources ("a company (cui) or a CAEN activity code (code, plus the county...)"), and distinguishes itself from the opposite watch_* siblings and from poll_watchlist. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear context: stop watching a company or activity, on your API key, with a no-op if not watched, and points to poll_watchlist for active watches. It does not explicitly state when to use this versus watch_company/watch_caen, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server