watch_removeStop tracking an item by providing its watch ID or URL. This action removes the watch and permanently deletes its stored observation history.
Call this tool to stop tracking an item, by watch id or by URL. Give either id or url. Its stored observation history is deleted and cannot be recovered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Watch id from watch_list | |
| url | No | URL of the watch, if you do not have the id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.20.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: stored observation history is deleted and cannot be recovered, which alerts the agent to the irreversible destructive nature of this operation.
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 sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, the parameter options are stated, and the critical irreversible consequence is included in a compact second sentence.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, parameter selection, and the only significant behavioral consequence. There is no missing guidance an agent would need to invoke it correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions already provide baseline meaning. The description adds value by explicitly presenting id and url as alternatives ('Give either id or url'), clarifying that they should not both be supplied.
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 uses a specific verb ('stop tracking') and clearly identifies the resource ('an item' or watch). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like watch_add, watch_list, and watch_refresh by focusing on removal.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: when you want to stop tracking an item. It also clarifies the two input modes (id or URL), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.