Delete a managed vMix trigger by its ID to disarm and remove it, stopping automated actions.
Disarm and remove an MCP-managed trigger definition.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reinforces the destructive nature of the operation ('disarm and remove') which aligns with the destructiveHint annotation, but it adds no additional behavioral context beyond that, such as irreversibility, side effects, or permission requirements. The phrase 'MCP-managed' hints at scope but doesn't elaborate.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('disarm and remove') and the resource. While brief, it conveys the core purpose effectively, though it could benefit from additional details.
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?
For a destructive operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the parameter, any prerequisites (e.g., that the trigger must be MCP-managed), or consequences of the action. The agent is left with insufficient information to safely invoke the tool.
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?
The description does not explain the 'id' parameter at all. With a schema coverage of 0%, the description should compensate by indicating that 'id' refers to the trigger identifier, but it is omitted entirely, leaving the agent without the necessary context to supply a correct value.
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?
The description clearly states the tool disarms and removes an MCP-managed trigger definition. The verb 'disarm and remove' is specific, and the resource is 'MCP-managed trigger definition', which distinguishes it from siblings like vmix_trigger_save and vmix_trigger_arm.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vmix_trigger_save or vmix_trigger_arm. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the usage context from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.