Skip to main content
Glama

Remove an object

remove_object
Destructive

Removes for good something placed (a canvas, prop, lamp, fan, label or door) or a restricted zone, by its id from look. Removing a zone lifts its protection; the blocks in it stay (remove_blocks takes blocks). To change a thing instead, use edit_object or move_object. Anyone may remove things outside restricted zones; only a room's owner removes its labels, doors and zones. Only adding it again undoes it. Costs one edit.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_object"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesIts id, as look gives it

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond that: removing a zone lifts protection while its blocks remain, deletion is only undone by re-adding, and it costs one edit. The permission model is a valuable behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loads the core action and its scope in the first clause, then adds alternatives and permissions. Dense but nearly every sentence carries operative information; only the parenthetical enumeration is slightly long.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, permissions, side effects on zones/blocks, reversibility, and cost. Nothing essential an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and there is a single required id parameter already documented as 'Its id, as look gives it'. The description's 'by its id from look' merely restates the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (removes for good) and enumerates the resource types it applies to (canvas, prop, lamp, fan, label, door, restricted zone), identified by id from look. This is clearly distinguishable from add_object and edit_object.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes the agent: use edit_object or move_object to change a thing instead, and remove_blocks to remove blocks inside a zone. It also states who may remove what (anyone outside restricted zones; only the owner for labels, doors, zones).

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.