Remove a chapter marker from a podcast project by specifying its title. Use it to delete unwanted markers and keep your timeline organized.
Remove a chapter marker by title.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| project_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "project_path",
- "title"
-]New value: +[
+ "title"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive mutation and largely fails to. It does not say whether the removal is reversible, what happens if the title matches nothing or matches more than one chapter, or whether exact/case-sensitive matching is required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence with the action and identifying key front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation the description is too thin. It omits matching semantics, failure behavior, and the role of project_path.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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. It only clarifies that 'title' is the lookup key; the optional project_path parameter (default null, presumably current project) is left completely unexplained in both schema and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource (remove a chapter marker) plus the lookup key (by title), which clearly separates it from add_chapter_tool and list_chapters_tool in the sibling set. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_chapters_tool (to confirm the title) or add_chapter_tool (the inverse operation). The agent must infer the context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.