VideoGenerationMCP

by AvivK5498

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

delete_asset

Remove a specific private asset using its asset ID to free up storage and manage generated video files on the server.

Instructions

Delete a private asset.

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": {
      "asset_id": "<asset_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asset_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It only states the action without addressing consequences like permanence, permissions, or impact on related data. The lack of any warning about irreversibility is a significant gap for a delete tool.

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, tightly worded sentence: 'Delete a private asset.' It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains no fluff, and is appropriate for a tool with a single parameter.

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 tool with no annotations and an output schema not shown, the description lacks critical context such as reversibility, permissions, and what happens after deletion. It is minimal and does not fully cover the operational aspects needed for an agent to use 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%, and the description does not explain 'asset_id' beyond the schema's string type. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory, so the agent can infer its purpose, but no additional semantics are provided.

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 the specific verb 'Delete' with the resource 'private asset', making the action unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_asset, upload_asset, and list_assets, so the agent knows this is the only tool for removal.

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 usage context is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites, or whether deletion is irreversible. This is particularly important for a destructive operation, but the description is silent.

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