Skip to main content
Glama

Remove Feature

remove_feature
Destructive

Use this when you need to remove a feature line from a script. Remove a single line from a kernelCAD script identified by a substring match. Returns the modified code plus diagnostics from re-evaluating. Refuses to remove the line containing the return statement. Side-effect-free.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesThe .kcad.ts source code.
matchYesA substring that uniquely identifies the line to remove (e.g. `const hole = cylinder(5,`).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedOutput schema / properties
      Removed value: -{
      -  "binding_name": {
      -    "description": "JS const name bound to the new construct (when one was created).",
      -    "type": "string"
      -  },
      -  "diagnostics": {
      -    "description": "Diagnostics from re-evaluating the modified source.",
      -    "items": {
      -      "additionalProperties": true,
      -      "type": "object"
      -    },
      -    "type": "array"
      -  },
      -  "error": {
      -    "description": "Failure message (present when ok is false).",
      -    "type": "string"
      -  },
      -  "new_code": {
      -    "description": "Modified .kcad.ts source (present on success). Caller persists it.",
      -    "type": "string"
      -  },
      -  "ok": {
      -    "description": "Whether the edit applied and re-evaluated cleanly.",
      -    "type": "boolean"
      -  }
      -}
    • removedOutput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
      -  "ok"
      -]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "additionalProperties": true,
      +  "properties": {
      +    "binding_name": {
      +      "description": "JS const name bound to the new construct (when one was created).",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "diagnostics": {
      +      "description": "Diagnostics from re-evaluating the modified source.",
      +      "items": {
      +        "additionalProperties": true,
      +        "type": "object"
      +      },
      +      "type": "array"
      +    },
      +    "error": {
      +      "description": "Failure message (present when ok is false).",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "new_code": {
      +      "description": "Modified .kcad.ts source (present on success). Caller persists it.",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "ok": {
      +      "description": "Whether the edit applied and re-evaluated cleanly.",
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "ok"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description discloses genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: it refuses to remove the return statement and returns modified code plus re-evaluation diagnostics. However, it also claims 'Side-effect-free', which is directly at odds with the declared readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, leaving the agent unsure whether confirmation is required before calling.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, and every one carries information (scope, matching, return value, refusal rule). The only waste is mild redundancy between 'remove a feature line' and 'remove a single line'.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations plus full schema coverage handle the rest; the description still covers scope, matching, and a hard precondition. The one gap is the unresolved safety framing that conflicts with the annotations.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description still adds a constraint on `match` by ruling out the return-statement line as a valid target. That extra semantic boundary is worth more than the baseline 3 for a fully documented schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a single line from a kernelCAD script identified by a substring match'), which also disambiguates the tool from model-level feature editing siblings like add_feature. An agent knows exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'Use this when you need to remove a feature line from a script' gives a clear trigger condition, and the refusal rule implicitly bounds the cases it handles. It does not name alternatives (e.g. repair_script, evaluate_script, or add_feature for the inverse operation), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.