Remove a clip from a waveform project by its unique clip ID.
Delete a clip by id.
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": {
"clip_id": "<clip_id>"
},
"name": "clip_remove"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clip_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Delete' makes the destructive nature clear, but it does not state whether deletion is permanent, whether it is undoable, or whether related automation/routing is affected. This is minimal but not misleading.
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 no filler. The core action and target are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.
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 one-parameter delete tool, the description is mostly adequate: it names the action and the required identifier. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves out details about reversibility, side effects, and expected response, so it is only minimally complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only restates that the operation is 'by id', adding little beyond the parameter name clip_id. It does not explain the expected format of the id or how to obtain it (e.g., via clip_list).
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 'Delete a clip by id' uses a specific verb (Delete), a clear resource (clip), and the identifying mechanism (by id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like clip_duplicate, clip_move, and clip_resize without needing to open the schema.
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 guidance about when to use clip_remove versus alternatives such as track_remove, clip_duplicate, or clip_list. It does not mention prerequisites like obtaining a clip_id, nor does it explain what happens if the clip does not exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.