Removes a named filter from a specified OBS source so you can clean up or reset source effects.
Removes a filter from a source
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filterName | Yes | Name of the filter to remove | |
| sourceName | Yes | Name of the source the filter is on |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'removes' implies a destructive mutation, the description lacks details on permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, error conditions (e.g., if the filter doesn't exist), or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, direct sentence with zero wasted words, efficiently conveying the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the essential information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool performs a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling, success indicators, or interactions with sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable invocation in a complex OBS environment.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('sourceName' and 'filterName'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where 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 ('removes') and the target ('a filter from a source'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'obs-remove-input' or 'obs-remove-scene-item', which also perform removal operations on different OBS entities, leaving some ambiguity about scope.
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. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the filter must exist), related tools like 'obs-create-source-filter' for adding filters, or sibling removal tools for other OBS components, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.