google-flow-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete media from the project library

flow_delete_media

Destructive

Permanently remove media from the Flow project library. Deletion cannot be undone, so only delete media that is explicitly ruled out.

Instructions

Permanently remove media from the Flow project library. Deletion cannot be undone and a deleted clip cannot be reliably re-added to a scene, so only delete what has been explicitly ruled out.

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": {
      "media_ids": "<media_ids>"
    },
    "name": "flow_delete_media"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`media_ids`	Yes	Exact ids to delete. There is deliberately no delete-all

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description emphasizes permanence and irreversibility, adding the useful detail that a deleted clip 'cannot be reliably re-added to a scene'—beyond the destructiveHint annotation. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a critical warning. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple delete operation with one parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all essential context: what it does, when to use it, and behavioral implications.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter (media_ids), the tool description adds no further semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('permanently remove') and the resource ('media from the Flow project library'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like flow_list_media and flow_upload_media.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description advises to delete only what has been 'explicitly ruled out,' providing clear context. However, it stops short of naming specific alternatives or conditions when not to use.

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