Remove the keyframe at frame N on a layer's track. Removing the last keyframe from a track restores the layer's static base value across the timeline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| frame | Yes | ||
| property | Yes | ||
| elementId | Yes | ||
| projectId | Yes | Opaque project id (a v4 UUID, from list_projects/create_project). Selects which existing project this call mutates. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context by explaining that removing the last keyframe restores the static base value across the timeline, and 'remove' conveys destruction. However, it does not describe error behavior when no keyframe exists at the given frame, irreversibility details, or what the tool returns.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core operation, and the second adds a valuable behavioral consequence without any wasted words.
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?
Given the tool's destructive nature, four required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential operation and one key behavior. It remains incomplete by not explaining what happens if there is no keyframe at frame N and by not clarifying how it differs from the specialized keyframe-removal siblings.
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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that frame refers to a keyframe position and that the operation targets a layer's track, but it leaves elementId implicit and does not elaborate on the property parameter beyond the schema's enum.
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 specific action and resource: remove a keyframe at a frame on a layer's track. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like remove_color_keyframe or remove_speed_keyframe.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus remove_color_keyframe, remove_speed_keyframe, add_keyframe, or set_keyframes_batch. The note about the last keyframe is a behavioral consequence, not an explicit usage condition or alternative selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tool set has several clusters that overlap conceptually: add_keyframe/add_keyframes/set_keyframes_batch, move_band/move_layer/shift_group/set_group_window, and fade_layer/set_layer_transition/set_layer_visible all target similar actions. However, each tool's description is distinct and detailed enough for an agent to disambiguate after careful reading. The sheer volume of 95 tools still creates meaningful selection risk.
Tool names overwhelmingly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_, remove_, set_, list_, rename_, create_, delete_), which is predictable and readable. Minor inconsistencies exist: plural variants like add_keyframes vs add_keyframe, mixed specificity like remove_keyframe vs remove_color_keyframe, and a few oddballs like reid_project and clip_processing_status. Overall the pattern is strong and helps navigation.
95 tools is far beyond the well-scoped range and will overwhelm agents; even a comprehensive video editor could consolidate keyframe batch operations, overlay/track manipulations, and page/group window controls. Many tools are highly specific (reid_project, safe_zones, move_band) and place burden on the agent to pick among near-synonym verbs. While the broad domain justifies many operations, this count is excessive for a coherent tool surface.
The surface covers a broad editing lifecycle: layers, keyframes, text, captions, audio, pages, groups, versions, projects, workspaces, and collections, including batch operations. However, there is no MCP tool to render/export the final MP4 (explicitly delegated to an SDK) and no upload_video tool for bringing in a clip file, leaving major end-to-end gaps. For the stated purpose of building and editing videos, these are significant omissions that force agents to stop short of delivery.