Skip to main content
Glama
nulab

Backlog MCP Server

delete_watching

Remove a watch from a Backlog issue to stop receiving notifications about updates to that specific task.

Instructions

Deletes a watch from an issue

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
watchIdYesWatch ID to delete

Implementation Reference

  • The deleteWatchingTool function defines the tool implementation, including the handler that executes backlog.deletehWatchingListItem(watchId) to delete the specified watching list item.
    export const deleteWatchingTool = (
      backlog: Backlog,
      { t }: TranslationHelper
    ): ToolDefinition<
      ReturnType<typeof deleteWatchingSchema>,
      (typeof WatchingListItemSchema)['shape']
    > => {
      return {
        name: 'delete_watching',
        description: t(
          'TOOL_DELETE_WATCHING_DESCRIPTION',
          'Deletes a watch from an issue'
        ),
        schema: z.object(deleteWatchingSchema(t)),
        outputSchema: WatchingListItemSchema,
        handler: async ({ watchId }) => backlog.deletehWatchingListItem(watchId),
      };
    };
  • Zod schema definition for the input parameters of the delete_watching tool, requiring a numeric watchId.
    const deleteWatchingSchema = buildToolSchema((t) => ({
      watchId: z
        .number()
        .describe(t('TOOL_DELETE_WATCHING_WATCH_ID', 'Watch ID to delete')),
    }));
  • The deleteWatchingTool is instantiated with the Backlog client and translation helper, and registered in the 'issue' toolset within the allTools function.
    deleteWatchingTool(backlog, helper),
  • Import of the deleteWatchingTool from its implementation file.
    import { deleteWatchingTool } from './deleteWatching.js';
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a watch, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't cover permissions, reversibility, side effects, or response format. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse, and every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects), usage context, and what happens post-deletion, leaving critical gaps for an agent to operate safely and effectively.

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%, with the parameter 'watchId' documented as 'Watch ID to delete'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as how to obtain the ID or format constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score 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 clearly states the action ('Deletes') and the resource ('a watch from an issue'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_issue' or 'update_watching', which would require more specificity about what a 'watch' entails in this context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'delete_issue' and 'update_watching', the description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing watch) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nulab/backlog-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server