Skip to main content
Glama

track_delete_batch

Remove one, multiple, or all tracks in a single call, with automatic handling of deletion order and error reporting for invalid indices.

Instructions

Delete one track, several, or all of them, in one call.

Destructive: on a project that already has content, confirm with the user before calling. A project backup is taken first.

Args: entries: JSON array. Each entry has exactly one of: {"all": true} delete every track {"track_index": 3} delete one track {"track_indices": [0, 2, 5]} delete several Indices are 0-based and refer to the track numbering as it is when the call starts; deletion order is handled for you, so entries can overlap or come in any order. The master track can't be deleted. A bad index is recorded in the response's errors array and does not abort the rest. The response lists what was deleted (original index and name).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entriesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.8.2

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and meets it thoroughly: it discloses destructiveness, backup behavior, 0-based indexing, overlap handling, the master-track restriction, error behavior for bad indices, and response contents.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, safety warning, then a compact Args block with exact JSON forms and edge-case behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information, with no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive, multi-mode batch deletion tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is self-sufficient. It covers all input variants, dangerous cases, failure handling, and what the response will contain.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema only says entries is a string with no description, but the description fully defines the JSON array format, the three mutually exclusive entry shapes, indexing semantics, and merge behavior. This completely compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 first line states a specific action and resource: "Delete one track, several, or all of them, in one call." This clearly distinguishes the tool from item_delete and other non-deletion track tools, even without naming a sibling.

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 gives important usage context for a destructive tool: confirm with the user on a project that already has content, and a backup is taken first. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like item_delete or state when not to use this tool.

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