PrusaSlicer-MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

remove_object

Deletes a specified object from the PrusaSlicer print bed by its object ID, clearing unwanted models before slicing or exporting.

Instructions

Remove an object from the bed.

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": {
      "object_id": "<object_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_object"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`object_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a destructive mutation ('Remove') but does not state whether the removal is permanent, what permissions are needed, or what happens if the object_id is invalid. It provides minimal context beyond the action itself.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is too sparse for a destructive tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter. The conciseness is good, but the structure is under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It identifies the core action and target but omits critical details about the parameter, side effects, and alternatives. For a mutation tool with such gaps, more context is needed.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has one required parameter (object_id) with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not mention object_id at all, nor explain how to identify the object to remove. This leaves the parameter completely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('object') with the scope 'from the bed'. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling alternatives like clear_plate, which also removes objects. Per the rubric, this is clear but lacks sibling differentiation, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clear_plate or other removal tools. There is no mention of preconditions, exclusions, or typical scenarios. The description simply states the action without advising the agent on selection.

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