scene_item_removeRemove a scene item from an OBS scene without deleting the source input, keeping the asset available for future use.
Remove one scene item without deleting the underlying input.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sceneId | No | OBS scene UUID. | |
| sceneName | No | OBS scene name. | |
| sceneItemId | Yes |
| 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 destructive nature is known. The description adds a specific behavioral detail—that the underlying input is not deleted—which is valuable and not captured by annotations. This goes beyond the baseline without contradicting 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 is front-loaded with the core action and the crucial nuance about not deleting the input. There is no wasted wording, and it efficiently communicates the essential information.
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?
The tool is simple (one required parameter) and has an output schema (indicated). The description covers the primary action and the key nuance. The optional sceneId/sceneName usage is clear from the schema, and the output schema covers return values. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 67%, with sceneId and sceneName having descriptions, but sceneItemId (the required parameter) lacks a description. The tool description does not explain any parameters or clarify how sceneItemId should be obtained. Since coverage is above 50%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description adds no additional parameter meaning.
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 specific action (remove), a resource (scene item), and a key distinguishing nuance (without deleting the underlying input). This clearly differentiates it from scene_delete and other scene-item operations, making the tool's purpose immediately 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 description implies usage for removing a scene item while preserving the input, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for when to use this tool over siblings like scene_item_enabled_set or scene_delete. The nuance about not deleting the input gives context, but no explicit exclusion or alternative is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.