remove_fireDelete a fire source from a simulation using its 0-based index. Use it to target and clear a specific fire when editing a fire scenario.
Remove a fire source by index (0-based). [bulc-mcp rules] FIRE-001, FIRE-002, FIRE-003 — bulc_knowledge_search ""
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | Yes | Fire index (0-based) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a pointer to FIRE-001/002/003 rules and bulc_knowledge_search, hinting at governance constraints, but it never explains what those rules require or what removal does to dependent data (e.g., whether a plot/device is affected).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The purpose is one short, front-loaded sentence. The second line is compact but oblique—an unexplained rule-id list and search reference that an agent cannot act on directly, costing a little clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 carry the safety profile and which has no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. However, the referenced FIRE rules and bulc_knowledge_search are left unexplained, so an agent lacks the context for whether pre-checking is required before removal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'Fire index (0-based)', so the schema already carries the meaning. The description merely repeats the 0-based indexing without adding syntax, valid ranges, or bounds-checking behavior, matching the baseline for fully-covered schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource ('Remove a fire source') and its selector ('by index (0-based)'), which clearly contrasts with siblings add_fire and update_fire by implication of the verb. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls just short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No statement of when to use this versus update_fire or remove_obstacle, and no prerequisites or conditions. The only directional hint is the cryptic '[bulc-mcp rules] ... bulc_knowledge_search' fragment, which does not explain the triggering context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.