Skip to main content
Glama

delete_video_project

Remove a video project from the Magic Hour MCP Server to manage storage and organize media content. Specify the project ID to delete it.

Instructions

Delete a video project.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe video project ID to delete

Implementation Reference

  • The delete_video_project tool registration and handler. This tool deletes a video project by ID using the Magic Hour API. It includes the schema definition (id parameter), error handling, and the async handler that calls client.v1.videoProjects.delete().
    server.tool(
      "delete_video_project",
      "Delete a video project.",
      {
        id: z.string().describe("The video project ID to delete"),
      },
      async ({ id }) => {
        try {
          await client.v1.videoProjects.delete({ id });
    
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text" as const,
                text: `Video project ${id} deleted.`,
              },
            ],
          };
        } catch (error: any) {
          return {
            content: [
              { type: "text" as const, text: `Error: ${error.message}` },
            ],
            isError: true,
          };
        }
      }
    );
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated resources, or what the response looks like. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise ('Delete a video project.') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it efficient despite its brevity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like irreversibility, permission requirements, error conditions, or response format. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for the lack of operational context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented in the schema as 'The video project ID to delete.' The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a video project'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from the sibling 'delete_image_project' tool, which performs a similar operation on a different resource type.

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?

The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing a project ID), when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparison with sibling tools like 'delete_image_project' for different resource types.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/andrianthan/magic-hour-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server