remove_geomDelete a specific GEOM entry from a BULC MCP fire-simulation project by ID to remove unwanted geometry. Use list_geoms to find the correct ID before deleting.
Remove a &GEOM entry by ID (see list_geoms).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | GEOM ID to remove |
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 agent knows this is a permanent mutating delete. The description adds no behavior beyond the structured fields: it does not say the deletion is irreversible, whether an undo/project_undo applies, or what happens if the ID is not found or is referenced elsewhere.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler and the reference to list_geoms placed after the core action. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves useful safety context unstated.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema delete tool whose annotations already carry the destructive profile, the description is minimally adequate. It omits any note on irreversibility or recovery via project_undo, which are the main remaining gaps an agent would care about.
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% with a single well-documented 'id' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by ID' plus the pointer to list_geoms adds only mild value about where a valid ID comes from, without format or validation details.
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 ('Remove') and resource ('a &GEOM entry') plus the identification key ('by ID'), which separates it cleanly from the read-only sibling list_geoms. It does not distinguish itself from the many other remove_* tools in the sibling set, so it lands just short of a 5.
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?
The parenthetical '(see list_geoms)' implies the workflow: enumerate geoms first to obtain the ID you pass in. That is helpful implicit guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no warning about destructive deletion, and no mention of alternatives such as shape_export_geom or project_undo.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.