Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CAD MCP Server

CAD MCP Server

by 652036
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

delete_entity

Remove a drawing entity by its ID to clean up or modify AutoCAD documents. Provide the required entity_id to delete specific geometry or objects.

Instructions

Remove an entity by id.

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": {
      "entity_id": "<entity_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_entity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entity_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies deletion but does not disclose whether removal is permanent, whether it can be undone, whether it cascades to dependent entities, what permissions or confirmations are required, or what the call returns. For a destructive operation this is a significant gap.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the action and resource and contains no filler. It is efficient, though for a destructive tool it is arguably undersized rather than optimally concise.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is structurally simple (one required string parameter, no output schema, no annotations), so the description covers the core invocation. However, it omits destructive semantics such as permanence and undo behavior, which an agent would benefit from knowing before calling.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter entity_id is undocumented in the schema. The description adds only the phrase 'by id', which lightly signals that a string identifier is expected but gives no format, type, or example. This does not sufficiently compensate for the missing schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (Remove) and resource (entity) and identifies the lookup key (by id). It is clear enough to distinguish from create_* and layer-related siblings, though it does not explicitly call out which entity types are affected or how it differs from other deletion tools like delete_layer.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, no alternatives, and no conditions under which it should be avoided. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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