MCP Audio Studio

Remove audio clip

remove_audio_clip

Destructive

Remove an audio clip from a track by specifying the track ID and clip ID. Delete unwanted segments to clean up your audio project.

Instructions

Remove an audio clip from a track.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "trackId": "<trackId>",
      "clipId": "<clipId>"
    },
    "name": "remove_audio_clip"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`clipId`	Yes
`trackId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals the tool is destructive. The description adds that it removes the clip from a track, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the clip is permanently deleted, undo behavior) beyond what the annotation implies. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, succinct sentence that directly states the tool's function. No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple, but the description omits parameter semantics and usage guidance. However, given the clear naming and destructive annotation, it is minimally sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool in a straightforward deletion scenario.

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

Parameters2/5

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. It does not explain the meaning or purpose of trackId and clipId. The parameter names are somewhat self-evident, but the description provides no additional detail, and the schema's $ref for clipId is structurally odd without explanation.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'remove' with the resource 'audio clip' and location 'from a track', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_audio_clip, update_audio_clip, and remove_effect.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. Usage is implied by the tool name and description—use when you need to delete an audio clip—but there is no comparison to alternatives like update_audio_clip.

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