teguma

delete_element

Delete a shape from a Penpot page by providing file, page, and shape IDs. This action is irreversible, so confirm before executing.

Instructions

Delete a shape from a Penpot page. Use with caution — this is irreversible.

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": {
      "fileId": "<fileId>",
      "pageId": "<pageId>",
      "shapeId": "<shapeId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_element"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fileId`	Yes	Penpot file ID
`pageId`	Yes	Page ID containing the element
`shapeId`	Yes	ID of the shape to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions irreversibility, a key trait, but omits details like required permissions, cascading effects, or whether the action is logged.

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?

Two clear, front-loaded sentences with no fluff. The warning could be integrated but is separate; overall efficient.

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?

For a simple delete tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and a key caution, but lacks context on side effects or confirmation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 tool deletes a shape from a Penpot page, using a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_element and update_element by focusing on deletion.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description warns to use with caution due to irreversibility, implying it's for permanent removal. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives like update_element for modifications.

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