Skip to main content
Glama

studio.remove_fillers

Hide filler words (um, uh, you know, kind of) from the transcript. REVERSIBLE: rows are soft-deleted, excluded from burn-in and SRT, and restore_fillers brings them back. Read the composition afterwards if you need to see which rows went.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "studio.remove_fillers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesThe studio project (vp_…) this tool acts on.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false; the description carries the real disclosure load: rows are soft-deleted (not destroyed), excluded from burn-in and SRT rendering, and recoverable via restore_fillers. That is exactly the non-obvious mutation semantics an agent needs before calling.

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?

Three short sentences: action first, then reversibility contract in caps, then an optional follow-up. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is buried.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what changes, what is affected downstream (burn-in, SRT), and how to undo and to verify. Nothing an agent needs before invoking is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains project_id. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the correct baseline for a one-param tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Hide filler words from the transcript') and spells out what counts as a filler (um, uh, you know, kind of). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like studio.remove_silence, studio.remove_dead_air, and the inverse studio.restore_fillers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Names the inverse tool restore_fillers and points to reading the composition to inspect what was removed, giving the agent clear follow-up paths. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with remove_silence/remove_dead_air when the transcript contains overlapping cleanup needs, so not quite a 5.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources