Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
orcaslicer-mcp

orcaslicer-mcp

by MaxEllis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Delete object from plate

delete_object
Destructive

Remove a specific plate object by id to clear unwanted parts while preserving other object ids. Re-slice afterward; deletion is irreversible through these tools and invalidates the last slice.

Instructions

Remove one object from the plate by id; this cannot be undone through these tools.

The other objects keep their ids.

Call list_objects first to get the id. Deleting leaves the last slice invalid, so re-slice afterwards. To drop just one copy made with duplicate_object, pass that copy's id.

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": "delete_object"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
object_idYesInteger id of the object to remove, taken from the 'id' field of list_objects (not the array index or the file name).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.10
    • addedInput schema / properties / object_id / description
      Added value: +"Integer id of the object to remove, taken from the 'id' field of list_objects (not the array index or the file name)."
  2. First observedv0.1.8

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real substance beyond them: irreversibility ('cannot be undone through these tools'), id stability for surviving objects, and the side effect of invalidating the last slice. That downstream consequence is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information (action, irreversibility, id stability, prerequisite, side effect, duplicate case), with the core action front-loaded. No filler or restatement of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter destructive tool whose annotations already flag the safety profile, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: how to obtain the id, that deletion is permanent, and the required follow-up re-slice. No output schema exists, but the success semantics (other ids unchanged) are stated.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds semantic guidance beyond the schema: id must come from list_objects, and when duplicates exist you pass the specific copy's id rather than the original's. This resolves a genuine ambiguity for the single object_id parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Remove one object from the plate by id.' The word 'one' distinguishes it from plate-level deletion, and an agent can tell it apart from duplicate_object, move_object_to_plate, or delete_plate without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicit preconditions and sequencing: 'Call list_objects first to get the id' and 're-slice afterwards' because the last slice becomes invalid. It also handles the duplicate_object edge case by explaining which copy's id to pass. It does not explicitly name a contrast case such as deleting the whole plate, which keeps it from a 5.

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