Skip to main content
Glama

shot.delete

Delete a shot; later clips close up. Deleting a scene's last shot keeps its clip as the scene's picture slot.

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>",
      "shotId": "<shotId>"
    },
    "name": "shot.delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
shotIdYes
projectIdYes
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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does deliver genuinely useful traits: a ripple/close-up effect on later clips and the special case where a scene's last shot leaves its clip as the picture slot. It omits whether deletion is reversible, what happens to keyframes/takes/renders tied to the shot, and the role of expectedVersion in concurrency control.

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?

Two tight clauses with the destructive action front-loaded and no filler. The second clause ("keeps its clip as the scene's picture slot") is dense and slightly ambiguous in phrasing, but it is not wasteful.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation with three undocumented parameters, the description covers only ripple semantics. It leaves out irreversibility, permission requirements, side effects on dependent assets, and the meaning of the required version parameter — all of which an agent needs before invoking it.

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%, so the description must compensate and it does not. It never mentions projectId or, more importantly, expectedVersion — an optimistic-concurrency token whose purpose and failure behavior an agent must understand before calling a destructive mutation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a shot"), clearly distinguishable from siblings like shot.update, shot.reorder, or scene.delete. The scope is nailed down without needing to open the schema, though it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no pointer to alternatives (e.g. shot.reorder or timeline.delete_item for non-destructive restructuring). Usage is only inferred from the verb.

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.