MCP Audio Studio

Remove effect

remove_effect

Destructive

Removes an unwanted effect from a track's effects chain by specifying the track ID and effect ID.

Instructions

Remove an effect from a track effects chain.

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>",
      "effectId": "<effectId>"
    },
    "name": "remove_effect"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`trackId`	Yes
`effectId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description does not add behavioral information beyond what the annotations already provide (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). It does not mention side effects, error cases, or the result of the operation. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description offers no extra context, so a low score is warranted.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and target with no unnecessary words. It is optimally concise while remaining clear.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter destructive operation with annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough information for an agent to understand what the tool does and infer what parameters to supply. It lacks details about return values or errors, but those are not essential given the tool's simplicity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Although the schema has no descriptions for the parameters, the phrase 'from a track effects chain' implies that trackId identifies the track and effectId identifies the effect to remove. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare parameter names and types, compensating for the 0% schema coverage.

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' and clearly identifies the resource: 'an effect from a track effects chain.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_effect, update_effect, or remove_plugin, making its purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly states the context in which to use the tool: when an effect needs to be removed from a track's effects chain. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the action is straightforward and the context is evident, satisfying the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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