Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

CutClip.one

by one.cutclip
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

scenario.delete

Delete a staged scenario draft (does not affect anything already applied to the timeline)

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>",
      "scenarioId": "<scenarioId>"
    },
    "name": "scenario.delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYes
scenarioIdYes
expectedVersionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only a staged draft is affected and applied timeline content is untouched, but it omits irreversibility, permission requirements, and expectedVersion conflict behavior.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The parenthetical clarification is directly useful and does not obscure the main action.

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 a destructive mutation with three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should explain expectedVersion semantics and deletion consequences to be complete enough for safe invocation.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and all three required parameters are undocumented. The description does not explain projectId, scenarioId, or the important expectedVersion concurrency parameter.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: delete a staged scenario draft. It also distinguishes the target from applied timeline content, which helps separate it from scenario.apply_to_timeline and other scenario tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It implies the tool is for deleting staged drafts and explicitly says it does not affect already-applied timeline content. However, it does not name alternatives or state when to use scenario.update or scenario.apply_to_timeline instead.

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