dream-creo-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_feature

Deletes a specified feature by ID from a Creo part after DELETE_FEATURE confirmation. Use it to remove unwanted model features, noting that dependent child features may fail.

Instructions

Creates/edits geometry in the running Creo 5 through the DreamFeatureApp plugin. There is no mirror tool: build symmetric shapes with symmetric extrudes, revolves or patterns. Units are mm and degrees. Parts are addressed by name (lowercase, no .prt). Model axes: FRONT is the XY plane (normal +Z), TOP is XZ (normal +Y), RIGHT is YZ (normal +X). Each feature call either ends with an active feature or is rolled back. Nothing is saved unless model_save is called. Check results with model_info (volume, bound_box) and preview_image.

Delete one feature by id (from model_info). Children may fail. Requires confirm=DELETE_FEATURE.

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>",
      "feature_id": "<feature_id>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "delete_feature"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Part name without .prt
`confirm`	Yes
`feature_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: a confirm token is required, child features may break, and changes are not persisted until model_save is called. It stops short of stating whether the deletion is reversible or how errors are surfaced, which keeps it below 5.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The delete-specific content is one short sentence at the very end, preceded by a long block of general modeling context (units, axes, mirror absence, save semantics) that is not front-loaded around this tool's purpose. An agent scanning for what this tool does must read past material unrelated to deletion.

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 destructive three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the essentials are present: id source, confirm guard, child-failure risk, and persistence semantics. Reversibility/undo guidance and error behavior are missing, which matters for a delete operation.

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 only 33% and two of three parameters are undocumented in the schema, yet the description supplies the exact confirm literal (DELETE_FEATURE) and the source of feature_id (model_info). That is meaningful compensation, though it does not explain the accepted format of confirm beyond the one literal.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The operative sentence, "Delete one feature by id (from model_info)," names a specific verb and resource. However, it is buried after a paragraph that opens with "Creates/edits geometry," which actively misdescribes a deletion tool, and no sibling (undo, feature_suppress) is named for differentiation.

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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite (confirm=DELETE_FEATURE) and a warning (children may fail), plus where to get the id. It does not say when to delete versus suppressing a feature or using undo, nor when deletion should be avoided.

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