Permanently delete the rendered audio file(s). This action is not reversible, please be sure before deleting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Unique ID of the audio project. This value is returned by all of the POST APIs that create an audio. |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states permanence and irreversibility, which are critical for a destructive operation, but it does not clarify whether only rendered audio files are deleted or the entire audio project record, nor does it mention permissions, side effects, or return behavior.
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 two short sentences with no waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the irreversibility warning is a necessary addition that 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 simple single-parameter deletion tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it names the resource, states the action, and warns about permanence. A small gap remains regarding whether the project metadata or only the rendered file(s) are removed, and what the response looks like, but this is not essential to invoking the tool 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?
The input schema covers the single 'id' parameter completely with its own description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond implying that the id identifies the audio project whose rendered files will be deleted.
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 (permanently delete) and a clear resource (rendered audio file(s)). It is distinct from siblings like audio_projects_retrieve_details, wait_for_audio_project, and fetch_audio_download, so an agent can easily tell which tool handles deletion.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites are mentioned. The 'please be sure before deleting' warning conveys caution but does not explain when deletion is appropriate or how to get the required id if not already known.
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.
Most generation tools target distinct media types or effects (e.g., clothes changer, head swap, lip sync), but several boundaries blur: ai_image_editor_create_image is a generic edit tool that overlaps conceptually with ai_face_editor_edit_image, ai_image_upscaler_create_image, and background remover. The wait_for_*_project helpers also overlap functionally with the *_projects_retrieve_details status tools, and ai_voice_cloner_create_audio vs. ai_voice_generator_create_audio are easy to confuse by name.
Naming conventions are mixed: many tools follow ai_<product>_create_<media>, but others are product-first (animation_create_video, body_swap_create_image) and resource-group tools follow a different noun_verb pattern (audio_projects_retrieve_details, video_projects_delete). Verbs are inconsistent too (create_image, edit_image, detect_faces, retrieve_details, wait_for, fetch), so an agent cannot reliably predict the next tool name.
At 44 tools, the set is heavy: it includes 27 generation tools plus three wait helpers, three status retrieval tools, three delete tools, three fetch helpers, and upload/ping utilities. While the underlying product is broad, many helpers could be consolidated, and the overall surface exceeds the range where each tool earns a clear place.
The lifecycle is mostly covered for image, video, and audio projects: create, poll/retrieve, fetch download, delete, and file upload/presigned-URL generation are all present. However, there is no project listing or cancel operation, and face detection only has detect/details with no delete or wait helper, leaving some workflow gaps an agent must work around.