Skip to main content
Glama
CarlxsMG

UEAgent

by CarlxsMG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

remove_usd_prim_schema

Destructive

Remove an applied API schema, such as MaterialBindingAPI, from an existing USD prim on a registered stage. It reports whether removal occurred and returns false when the prim lacks the schema.

Instructions

Remove an applied API schema (e.g. "MaterialBindingAPI") from an existing prim of a registered USD stage, on the current edit target. A schema the prim does not have returns removed=false and was_applied=false instead of an error. Not saved to disk; inverse of apply_usd_prim_schema.

Returns: { removed: bool, schema_name: string }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
prim_pathYesAbsolute SdfPath of an existing prim, e.g. "/World/Cube".
stage_nameNoName the stage was registered under by create_usd_stage or open_usd_stage; a stage already in the USD cache also matches by the end of its root layer identifier.
schema_nameYesSchema identifier as listed in applied_schemas by get_usd_prim_info, e.g. "MaterialBindingAPI".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / prim_path / description
      Previous value: -"Target prim path"New value: +"Absolute SdfPath of an existing prim, e.g. \"/World/Cube\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / schema_name / description
      Previous value: -"Schema identifier (e.g. \"MaterialBindingAPI\")"New value: +"Schema identifier as listed in applied_schemas by get_usd_prim_info, e.g. \"MaterialBindingAPI\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / stage_name / description
      Previous value: -"Stage cache key"New value: +"Name the stage was registered under by create_usd_stage or open_usd_stage; a stage already in the USD cache also matches by the end of its root layer identifier."
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds real value beyond that: a no-op schema returns removed=false/was_applied=false instead of erroring, changes are not saved to disk (implying save_usd_stage is needed), and the edit-target scoping. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure on top of the structured hints.

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-loaded with the core action, followed by the no-op edge case and the disk-persistence caveat, then the return shape. Each sentence carries information; only the trailing Returns block is somewhat redundant given the shorter note already in prose.

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?

For a destructive mutation with annotations but no output schema, the description covers the key gaps: no-op semantics, in-memory-only persistence, and the return fields. Complete enough for correct invocation, though it omits the response's role in chaining a subsequent save.

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%, so prim_path, stage_name and schema_name are already fully documented in the schema, including examples. The description echoes the schema_name example but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema baseline.

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 (Remove) and resource (an applied API schema on a USD prim), and names the sibling it inverts (apply_usd_prim_schema). An agent can distinguish this from the many other removal tools 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?

Gives clear operational context: operates on the current edit target, requires an existing prim on a registered stage, and names the inverse tool. It does not spell out when to prefer this over alternatives or prerequisites like stage registration, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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