scene_deleteDelete an OBS scene by providing its UUID or name to remove it from the current scene list.
Delete an OBS scene by UUID or name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sceneId | No | OBS scene UUID. | |
| sceneName | No | OBS scene 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, so the agent knows this is destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context such as irreversibility, cascading effects on scene items, or confirmation steps. It restates the basic action but provides no extra insight beyond the annotations.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action ('Delete') and resource, followed by the selection method. There is no unnecessary wording, making it concise and easy to parse.
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?
For a simple deletion tool with two optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention that at least one identifier is needed, but the schema implies that, and the destructive nature is covered by annotations. Overall, it meets the needs for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both sceneId and sceneName documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, such as whether one is required or what happens if both are provided. Since the schema already covers parameter semantics, the description provides minimal added value.
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 uses the specific verb 'delete' with the resource 'OBS scene' and the method 'by UUID or name', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scene_create (create) and scene_list (list). An agent can immediately identify the action and target.
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?
No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. While the name and description make the purpose obvious, there is no mention of conditions like needing at least one of sceneId or sceneName, or when to prefer a different tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.