Sora 2 MCP Server

delete_video

Remove a video generation job and its associated data from the Sora 2 MCP Server by specifying the video ID.

Instructions

Delete a video generation job and its associated data.

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": {
      "video_id": "<video_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_video"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`video_id`	Yes	The ID of the video to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Feb 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a job and its data, implying a destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('Delete') and resource. There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and accurately.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, success/error responses, or usage constraints, which are crucial for safe and effective tool invocation in this context.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'video_id' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema (e.g., format examples or source of the ID), 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.

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a video generation job and its associated data'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'list_videos' or 'get_video_status', which are read operations, so it misses the highest score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing video ID), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete in-progress jobs), or comparisons to siblings like 'create_video' or 'merge_videos', leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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

Deploy Server