media_removeRemove a media source from OBS by deleting its input and all associated scene items, using either the media ID or name.
Delete a Media Source input and all of its scene items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mediaId | No | Media ID. This is the OBS input UUID returned by media_add/media_list. | |
| mediaName | No | OBS media input name. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| result | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat basic mutability. It adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the cascade effect on scene items and by limiting the target to Media Source inputs, which are not inferable from the structured data.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action verb. Both phrases, 'Media Source input' and 'all of its scene items,' carry necessary information, so every word earns its place.
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?
Output schema and annotations cover return values and destructive side effects, but a practical gap remains: the schema lists both parameters as optional while the description does not clarify that at least one of mediaId or mediaName is needed. An agent could reasonably attempt a call with no arguments. This is a notable missing piece for a destructive tool.
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 100%: mediaId and mediaName are already documented as the OBS input UUID and media input name. The description adds no guidance on selecting between the two parameters or on the fact that both are listed as optional in the schema, so it provides no semantic value beyond what the schema already gives.
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?
The description states a precise verb ('Delete') and resource ('a Media Source input'), and expands the scope with 'all of its scene items,' which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like scene_item_remove. This makes the tool's function unambiguous.
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?
The cascade wording ('and all of its scene items') gives an agent clear context for choosing this tool over scene_item_remove, which removes only a single scene item. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the scope is clear enough for correct selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.