remove_punctuationPROJECT-SCOPED: this call acts only on the explicit project_id and returns the project identity with its result. Remove accents, strobes, junction devices and matte flashes by id (get_edl fx), or ids='all'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | Required immutable scope for this call. Copy the id from list_projects/open_project/project_state; the active-project pointer is never used to guess. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that the call is strictly scoped to an explicit project_id and returns the project identity, but it says nothing about reversibility of removed devices or permission needs.
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, front-loaded with the scoping constraint before the action detail. Efficient, though the scoped-boilerplate sentence mirrors sibling tools and could be trimmed.
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?
With no output schema the description does note that the project identity is returned, covering the return shape. However for a mutation tool it omits reversibility and permission context, leaving the picture partially incomplete.
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 50%: project_id is well documented in the schema, while ids is not. The description partially compensates by revealing that ids accepts 'all' and that fx ids come from get_edl, which is meaningful beyond the raw schema, but it does not clarify the array-vs-string form.
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?
States a clear verb (Remove) and enumerates the resource targets it acts on (accents, strobes, junction devices, matte flashes), which is essential because 'punctuation' is not self-explanatory. It does not name or distinguish itself from sibling removers like remove_editorial_graphic or remove_motion_graphic, so it stops short of 5.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance versus the many remove_* siblings. It implies usage by describing id-based targeting and the ids='all' shortcut, but never states when to reach for this tool over alternatives or what prerequisites apply.
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.