Remove a Track View cinematic sequence from the current level by name. Use it to delete a specified sequence when cleaning up or editing level cinematics.
Delete a Track View cinematic sequence from the current level.
Args: name: Sequence name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive, likely irreversible operation, but the description says nothing about permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens to sequences bound to nodes or currently playing.
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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is minimal with no wasted prose. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though the Args line is redundant.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter description coverage, the definition omits critical behavioral context (reversibility, preconditions, effect on running/related sequences).
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 coverage is 0% for the single 'name' parameter. The description only restates 'Sequence name.', which adds essentially no meaning beyond the schema's own title. It does not explain accepted formats, prefixes, or whether the name must already exist.
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?
States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (Track View cinematic sequence) plus scope (from the current level), which an agent can distinguish from create_sequence/get_sequence. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus create_sequence, get_sequence, or stop_sequence, and no prerequisites such as whether the sequence must be stopped first. The agent is left to infer usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.