Deletes a named strip from the Blender sequencer, useful for cleaning up video or audio edits before rendering. Provide the strip name to remove it and get a confirmation.
Remove a strip from the sequencer by name.
Args: strip_name: Name of the strip to remove.
Returns: Confirmation dict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| strip_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states only that a strip is removed and returns a 'Confirmation dict,' but says nothing about whether the removal is permanent/undoable, what happens if the name does not match an existing strip, or what permissions are needed for this destructive operation.
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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args/Returns block is short and standard. Nothing is bloated, though the Returns line duplicates what the output schema already provides.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, for a destructive mutation with zero annotations, the definition omits irreversibility, error behavior when the name is not found, and any usage context, leaving meaningful gaps.
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 0%, and the single parameter is only restated ('Name of the strip to remove'). It confirms the param is a name-based identifier but adds no naming-format, uniqueness, or case-sensitivity detail beyond the schema's 'Strip Name' title.
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 gives a specific verb (remove) and resource (strip from the sequencer), plus the lookup mechanism (by name). It is easily distinguished from the add_*_strip and list_strips siblings, though it does not name any of them explicitly.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the tool for deleting a sequencer strip, with nothing about when it is appropriate versus other strip operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.