Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kdenlive MCP Server

Kdenlive MCP Server

by Va1bhav512
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

transition_remove

Delete a specific video transition from a Kdenlive project by supplying its numeric ID. Resolves the need to remove unwanted transitions precisely.

Instructions

Delete a transition by its numeric ID.

Args: transition_id: Transition identifier.

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": {
      "transition_id": "<transition_id>"
    },
    "name": "transition_remove"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
transition_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Delete' communicates that this is a destructive mutation, but it does not disclose whether the operation is irreversible, whether a nonexistent ID is an error, or what happens to the transition after deletion.

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?

The description is one clear sentence followed by a minimal argument note. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter delete operation and has no filler or repetition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple one-parameter destructive operation with an output schema present, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gap is that it does not indicate how to find a valid transition ID, but the sibling transition_list tool makes that inferable.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description had to compensate. It only restates the parameter as 'Transition identifier,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema's property name and integer type. It does not explain where to obtain the ID or constraints on valid values.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Delete a transition by its numeric ID.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like transition_add, transition_set, and transition_list by stating this is the removal operation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention that the ID should come from transition_list. The description states what the tool does but gives no decision context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools