Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

CutClip.one

by one.cutclip
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

character.delete

Remove a character (and its reference sheet) from the cast

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "expectedVersion": "<expectedVersion>",
      "characterId": "<characterId>"
    },
    "name": "character.delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYes
characterIdYes
expectedVersionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the important cascade that the reference sheet is destroyed alongside the character, but says nothing about reversibility (project.undo exists), required permissions, or what happens to scenes/prompts referencing the character.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the cascade clause is attached where it matters. It is arguably too terse for a destructive operation, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For an irreversible-looking mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented required parameters including a version token, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call it safely.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across three required parameters, and the description mentions none of them. In particular expectedVersion, clearly an optimistic-concurrency token, is left completely unexplained, as is the role of projectId scoping.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Specific verb 'Remove' plus resource 'character' and the notable side effect 'and its reference sheet', which distinguishes it from character.create/update/get. It is not explicitly differentiated from the similarly named sibling character.remove_reference, which is the most likely confusion.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No statement of when to use this versus character.remove_reference (detach one reference) or character.update. The only guidance is implicit in the verb, and for a 3-parameter destructive tool in a large sibling set that is thin.

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

All CutClip.one toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources