Remove your own entity by id. Its children are kept and re-parented to its parent. Optional room.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "world_remove"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| room | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important side effect: children are not deleted but re-parented to the removed entity's parent. That is genuine behavioral value. It omits reversibility, permission requirements, and what happens on a bad or foreign id, which matters for a destructive mutation.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and id, followed by the side effect and the optional parameter. No wasted wording, though the fragment "Optional room." is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic.
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?
For a two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the key semantics: what is removed, the ownership constraint, and the re-parenting effect on children. Gaps remain around failure modes and irreversibility, but the essentials an agent needs to invoke it correctly are present.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by identifying id as an entity id and flagging room as optional. It adds no format, default, or scoping detail for room beyond the schema pattern, so the compensation is only partial.
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?
"Remove your own entity by id" gives a specific verb (remove) and resource (entity) plus the scope restriction that only the caller's own entity can be deleted. It is clear on its own, but it does not name or contrast with any sibling (e.g. world_edit) that might also mutate entities.
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?
Usage is implied by the ownership qualifier "your own entity" and the re-parenting note, which hints at when deletion is safe. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-edit guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no exclusion of related alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.