MCP Audio Studio

Remove automation lane

remove_automation

Destructive

Clean up your project by deleting unwanted automation lanes using their lane ID.

Instructions

Remove an automation lane.

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": {
      "laneId": "<laneId>"
    },
    "name": "remove_automation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`laneId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true) and non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds no further context about consequences, such as whether the lane and its associated automation data are permanently deleted or if the action is reversible. It simply restates the title without additional behavioral disclosure.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no redundant text, making it very concise. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, though it does communicate the core action clearly.

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?

Given the tool's simple nature (1 parameter, no output schema), the description might suffice for basic understanding, but it lacks important context for a destructive operation. There is no mention of what happens to the automation data, whether the lane is deleted from the project permanently, or any relation to sibling tools like upsert_automation. The description is minimal and leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema documents laneId as a required string with minLength 1, but the description provides no explanation of what laneId represents, how to obtain it, or any format expectations. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate but does not mention the parameter at all.

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 states 'Remove an automation lane' with a specific verb and resource, clearly differentiating it from sibling removal tools like remove_effect or remove_audio_clip by targeting automation lanes. However, it lacks elaboration on what an automation lane is or the removal scope, preventing a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as upsert_automation or other remove_* tools. The description provides no context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support.

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