unmark_watchedRemoves the watched status of movies or entire shows while keeping their ratings, letting you reset watch history for titles you want to mark as unwatched again.
Remove the watched status of movies or whole shows (ratings are kept).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| shows | No | Shows | |
| movies | No | Movies |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful side-effect context beyond that: ratings survive the operation, and the granularity is whole shows rather than episodes. It doesn't mention return values or what happens on an empty request.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and the target, with the preservation note in parentheses. No filler and nothing an agent must scroll past.
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?
For a two-optional-parameter mutation with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers what changes and what is preserved. Minor gaps remain: behavior with neither array supplied and whether episodes can be individually unmarked.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'shows' and 'movies' arrays and their imdb/tmdb item fields are already documented. The phrase 'whole shows' adds a small semantic clarification about the shows array, but nothing is said about whether both arrays may be sent together or how IDs are matched.
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 and resource ('Remove the watched status') and scopes it to 'movies or whole shows', which immediately separates it from mark_watched. The parenthetical '(ratings are kept)' distinguishes it from remove_ratings without naming that sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the inverse of mark_watched, and '(ratings are kept)' hints at when to prefer it over remove_ratings. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or statement of prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.