unwatch_listingStop tracking a watch listing by ID. Removes it from your watchlist locally with no network request.
Stop tracking a listing. No network requests.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| removed | Yes | ||
| watchedCount | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering mutation and repeat-safety. The description adds a non-obvious operational trait, 'No network requests', which tells the agent the action is local and has no network side effects. This does not contradict the annotations.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler: the core operation isfront-loaded, and the behavioral note is kept brief. Every word earns its place.
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 single-parameter, low-complexity tool, the description plus annotations and output schema cover the essentials: what it does, safety profile (destructive/idempotent hints), and network behavior. No return-format explanation is needed because an output schema exists.
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?
The schema provides only the id property with a digit pattern and no description. The tool description's 'a listing' implies id refers to the listing being unwatched, but it never explicitly maps the parameter or clarifies whether id is a listing ID versus a watch entry ID. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a meaningful gap.
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?
The description states a clear verb ('Stop tracking') and a specific resource ('a listing'), precisely identifying the tool's operation. The name and sibling set (watch_listing, get_watches) make the inverse relationship obvious, so an agent can distinguish it from related tools.
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: an agent should call this when it no longer wants a listing tracked, and it is the natural counterpart to watch_listing. However, the description does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives or mention prerequisites/exclusions, leaving routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.