Removes a specific scene item from an OBS scene using its scene name and item ID, helping you clean up or restructure scenes without manual OBS Studio edits.
Remove a scene item from a scene
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sceneName | Yes | The scene to remove the item from | |
| sceneItemId | Yes | The ID of the scene item to remove |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this action is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or affects other scene elements. It lacks details on error conditions, side effects, or what happens if the scene/item doesn't exist.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'removal' entails (deletion, hiding, archiving), what the tool returns (success confirmation, error details), or how it interacts with the OBS ecosystem. The context signals show this is a simple 2-parameter tool, but the description fails to provide necessary behavioral context.
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%, with both parameters ('sceneName', 'sceneItemId') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful context beyond what the schema provides about these parameters, such as format examples or relationship between them. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action ('Remove') and target ('a scene item from a scene'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-remove-scene' or 'obs-remove-input', which also perform removal operations on different resources.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing scene item), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'obs-get-scene-items' (to identify items) or 'obs-create-scene-item' (to add items).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.