Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Blender MCP Ultra

Blender MCP Ultra

by 3bdull4h2008
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

delete_object

Remove unwanted objects from the Blender scene by specifying their exact name, allowing precise cleanup.

Instructions

Delete an object by name.

Args: name: Name of the object to delete.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "delete_object"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'delete,' which is already implicit in the tool name. It does not mention whether the deletion is permanent, if child objects are affected, or any side effects on the scene.

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?

The description is extremely brief and to the point, with an Args section that cleanly separates the purpose from the parameter. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

For a destructive operation with no annotations, output schema, or additional context, the description is inadequate. It does not address what happens if the object does not exist, whether deletion affects hierarchy, or if the operation is reversible, leaving critical gaps for an agent to safely invoke it.

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 single parameter 'name' is described as 'Name of the object to delete,' which adds a slight clarification that it refers to the object's name rather than something else. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description only minimally compensates and does not explain format, uniqueness, or error behavior.

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 description clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (an object), making it distinct from sibling delete tools like delete_material, delete_scene, and delete_collection. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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?

No information is provided about when to use this tool versus other deletion tools, nor about any prerequisites such as object existence or selection state. The description only states the basic action without contextual guidance.

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