aviutl2-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

スクリプトの削除

uninstall_script

Remove a script from the MCP server's managed folder by filename. It only deletes within C:\ProgramData\aviutl2/Script/MCP, restricting access to other locations.

Instructions

このサーバーが管理するフォルダ (C:\ProgramData\aviutl2/Script/MCP) からスクリプトを削除する。それ以外の場所は削除できない。

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": {
      "filename": "<filename>"
    },
    "name": "uninstall_script"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filename`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the deletion scope is restricted to the managed folder and cannot delete elsewhere. However, it does not mention irreversibility, side effects, or error handling, which are relevant for a destructive action.

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 two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. It clearly delivers the action and a key constraint, making it efficiently structured and 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?

The tool is simple, but the description is incomplete for correct usage. The missing parameter semantics (what 'filename' should contain) and lack of behavioral details (irreversibility, failure behavior) mean the agent lacks necessary context. No output schema or annotations exist to fill these gaps.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter 'filename' with no description, and the tool description does not explain how to specify it (e.g., full path, extension, relative name). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter ambiguous.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool deletes a script from a specific managed folder (C:\ProgramData\aviutl2/Script/MCP), providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like install_script by specifying deletion rather than installation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for removing scripts from the managed folder and explicitly states the exclusion that it cannot delete from other locations. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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