brickbuilder-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

remove_parts

Delete LEGO parts by ID or clear every piece touching a grid region to edit a brick model. Use it to remove unwanted pieces before rebuilding or exporting.

Instructions

Remove parts by id and/or every part touching an inclusive grid region.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "remove_parts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	No
`region`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive operation. It does not say whether removal is reversible, that an 'undo' sibling exists, what happens when both ids and region are supplied (union vs intersection), or how an empty argument list is handled.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with zero filler, and the key scoping words ('by id and/or') are placed early. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a destructive tool with zero annotations and a 0%-described schema the description should cover reversibility, the undo path, and the combined-parameter semantics. Those omissions are significant for a mutation tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the Region sub-object's coordinate fields carry no descriptions, so the description does real work: it establishes that 'region' is a grid region and that its bounds are inclusive, and that parts *touching* the region (not just contained in it) are removed. It stops short of defining the overlap predicate precisely or clarifying the union semantics of the two parameters together.

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 names a specific verb (remove) and resource (parts) and states the two selection modes, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like add_parts, but there is little risk of confusion since no other sibling deletes geometry.

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 phrase 'by id and/or ... region' implies the two mutually usable invocation modes, which is more than nothing. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as 'undo', no prerequisites, and no warning about calling it with neither selector.

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

Deploy Server