Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aviutl2-mcp

aviutl2-mcp

by sima05020
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

オブジェクトの削除

delete_object

Delete an object from an AviUtl project using its index. Subsequent objects shift to maintain order.

Instructions

オブジェクトを削除する。以降のオブジェクトの index は詰められる。

Tool call template

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "object_index": "<object_index>"
    },
    "name": "delete_object"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
sceneNo
object_indexYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds behavioral context beyond the bare action by explaining that subsequent object indices are packed. However, with no annotations provided, it fails to disclose other crucial traits such as whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, or affects other scenes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of one short sentence followed by a clear behavioral note. Every word earns its place, and the key action is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be contextually complete. It does not explain what 'path' refers to, how 'object_index' is scoped, the role of 'scene', or the expected success/failure behavior, leaving significant gaps for a deletion operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the tool description provides no explanation of the parameters 'path', 'scene', or 'object_index'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving users guessing at parameter meanings and relationships.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool deletes an object and adds a specific behavioral note about reindexing subsequent objects. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'live_delete_object', leaving ambiguity about which delete operation to use.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like live_delete_object, nor are any prerequisites or intended scenarios mentioned. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools