Skip to main content
Glama

ass_plain_text

Strip all override tags from an ASS subtitle line to get plain visible text. Optionally keep specific tags or groups like clip, fade, or karaoke.

Instructions

Strip every override tag, optionally keeping some tags or tag groups.

Args: text / index / doc_id: the line to inspect (raw string or a 0-based line index of doc_id); exactly one source must be given. keep: "" (or None) removes everything. Otherwise a comma/space separated string or a list whose items are either a tag name ("pos", "\an", "1c") or a tag group name. Group names win over tag names and expand to the whole family, e.g. "clip" keeps \clip and \iclip, "fade" keeps \fad and \fade. Known groups: transform, fade, clip, drawing, karaoke, layout, color, style, reset, animation.

Returns {"source", "index", "doc_id", "text", "plain_text", "keep_names", "keep_groups", "kept", "changed"} where text is the stripped line (it still contains the kept override blocks), plain_text is the fully tag-free visible text and kept lists the kept tags that were actually present. Read-only; no snapshot, no indices.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keepNo
textNo
indexNo
doc_idNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the safety-relevant trait explicitly: 'Read-only; no snapshot, no indices.' That tells the agent this mutates nothing and creates no undo state. It does not cover error behavior (invalid index, missing document) or any auth/permission expectations, so it stops short of full transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded one-sentence purpose, then clearly labelled Args and Returns blocks. The group enumeration is dense but load-bearing for correct invocation; the return-key restatement is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, costing it the top score.

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 4-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers every parameter's semantics, the source-selection rule, and the read-only safety profile. The only gaps are error/edge-case behavior (no source given, bad index) and explicit sibling routing, which are minor against the rest of the detail.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly: it explains the text/index/doc_id trichotomy and the exactly-one-source rule, defines keep's empty/None behavior, accepts string or list, clarifies tag names vs group names, states that group names win, gives concrete expansion examples (clip, fade), and enumerates the known groups. This is meaning no schema could supply on its own.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: strips override tags from a line, with the twist of optional selective keeping. The 'optionally keeping some tags or tag groups' clause distinguishes it functionally from sibling tag-removal tools like ass_strip_tags and ass_remove_tag, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives the key invocation constraint ('exactly one source must be given') but never states when to prefer this over ass_strip_tags, ass_parse_text, or ass_tag_summary, nor what happens if zero or multiple sources are supplied. Usage context is implied by the keep mechanism rather than stated.

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