Skip to main content
Glama

ass_remove_tag

Delete named override tags (e.g., pos, move) from ASS subtitle lines, preserving visible text and preventing unclosed blocks. Works on selections, indices, raw text, or documents.

Instructions

Delete every occurrence of the named override tags.

Args: selection / index / text / doc_id: the usual three input modes. names: a single tag name ("pos") or a list (["pos", "move"]); a comma separated string works too. Group names are accepted and expand to the whole family ("clip" removes \clip and \iclip). in_place: write back to the document (snapshot-backed). The raw-string mode never writes.

Returns, single-line: {"source", "index", "doc_id", "names", "removed", "removed_count", "text", "plain_text", "changed", "written"} where removed lists every deleted occurrence as {"name", "argument", "raw", "block"}; selection mode returns {"source": "selection", "doc_id", "names", "count", "changed", "written", "in_place", "removed_count", "lines": [{"index", "before", "after", "removed", "changed"}]}. Removing a tag never touches the visible text and never leaves an unclosed block: emptied blocks are dropped entirely.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textNo
indexNo
namesNo
doc_idNo
in_placeNo
selectionNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: in_place writes back to a snapshot-backed document, raw-string mode never writes, removal never affects visible text, never leaves unclosed blocks, and emptied blocks are dropped. Detailed return fields further reinforce the effect of the operation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is front-loaded and structured with Args and Returns sections. However, it includes lengthy return-shape details even though an output schema already exists, making parts of it redundant and less concise than necessary.

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 six-parameter, annotation-free tool, the description is rich: it covers purpose, input modes, group expansion, write behavior, and return semantics. Minor gaps remain around explicit sibling alternatives and precise input-mode parameter details, but it is largely complete enough to invoke correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% over six parameters, so the description must compensate. It richly explains names (single, list, comma-separated, group expansion) and in_place, but lumps selection/index/text/doc_id together as the 'usual three input modes' without types or format detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (override tags) with scope (every occurrence), so the core action is clear. It does not, however, differentiate from sibling tag tools such as ass_strip_tags, ass_remove_clip, or ass_set_tag.

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?

Explains input modes and the in_place write behavior, implying when the tool is appropriate. But it gives no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives among the many tag-manipulation siblings.

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