Skip to main content
Glama

node_delete

Destructive

Deletes specified nodes from a Daz Studio scene, including figures, clothing, hair, props, cameras, and lights, with an option to also remove fitted clothing and hair.

Instructions

Deletes nodes (figures, clothing, hair, props, cameras, lights) from the scene.

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": {
      "nodes": "<nodes>"
    },
    "name": "node_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodesYesLabels of the nodes to delete.
with_fittedNoAlso delete clothing and hair fitted to a figure.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond them: it never says the deletion is irreversible, never warns that deleting a figure can cascade to fitted items, and never describes whether undo is possible. For a destructive operation this is a meaningful omission.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler and the node-type enumeration packed into parentheses. It is efficient, though there is no added structure (no warning or usage clause) that would justify a 5.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations carrying the destructive flag, the definition is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is the absence of any irreversibility or cascade warning, which matters given the tool permanently removes scene objects.

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 100%, so both 'nodes' and the defaulted 'with_fitted' cascade flag are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning, such as label-vs-internal-ID expectations or length limits on the array.

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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Deletes') plus resource ('nodes') and enumerates the node kinds covered (figures, clothing, hair, props, cameras, lights), which lets an agent match it to scene objects. It does not distinguish itself from any sibling, but no sibling in the listed set performs scene-node deletion.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisite (e.g., node must exist / be loaded), and no exclusions or alternatives. The only implied guidance is the destructive verb itself.

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