Remove an existing OBS Studio input by name to clean up scenes and sources, with confirmation required when destructive protection is active.
Removes an existing input
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Explicit confirmation required when OBS_PROTECT_DESTRUCTIVE is active | |
| inputName | Yes | Name of the input to remove |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the input is removed but does not disclose irreversibility, the impact on scenes or sources that reference the input, or the confirmation requirement mentioned only in the schema.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Its brevity is appropriate for the purpose statement, even though other dimensions need more content.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits the operational context an agent needs, such as the consequences of removal and the role of the confirm parameter.
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 100%, so both inputName and confirm are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.
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 states a specific verb and resource: removing an existing input. It is clear enough to distinguish from tools that create, get, or modify inputs, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling removal tools such as obs-remove-scene-item or obs-remove-source-filter.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no warning about when not to use it. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'Removes'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.