Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
jwmcp

jwmcp

by Koheui
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

drawing_remove

Remove entities by ID or tag from a Jw_cad drawing, or clear all entities to empty the drawing.

Instructions

Remove entities by id (or every entity with the given tag). Use clear=true to empty the drawing.

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>"
    },
    "name": "drawing_remove"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsNo
tagNo
nameYes
clearNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the destructive scope of tag-based removal ('every entity with the given tag') and the clear-all mode. It stops short of stating irreversibility, permission requirements, or behavior when an id does not exist.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the alternate selection mode, with the clear=true instruction last. No filler and no redundancy.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main usage paths but omits the required 'name' argument and any safety framing. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does explain ids, tag, and clear. The gap is the required 'name' parameter, which is never explained in either the schema or the description, leaving the single mandatory argument ambiguous.

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 ('entities') plus the two selection modes (by id, or every entity with a tag), which clearly separates it from drawing_add and drawing_update. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 one concrete usage cue ('Use clear=true to empty the drawing'), which tells the agent when that parameter applies. However, it offers no guidance on choosing between ids and tag, and no warning about when not to use this destructive tool.

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