protein-blender-mcp

remove_style

Removes a style layer by its index from a protein structure, letting you undo unwanted styling and keep Blender scenes clean.

Instructions

Remove one style layer by its index (see get_scene_info).

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": {
      "index": "<index>"
    },
    "name": "remove_style"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`index`	Yes
`molecule`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden for a mutating operation. It does not disclose whether removal is reversible, what happens to the indices of remaining style layers (a critical concern for index-keyed deletion), or what error behavior occurs for out-of-range indices.

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 that states the action and its keying argument with no filler. It is terse rather than padded, though the terseness is partly the source of the semantic gaps.

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 simple two-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the primary path adequately and points to get_scene_info for index lookup. It falls short on the unexplained 'molecule' parameter and on the post-removal state, which an agent needs before calling it safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% with two parameters, so the description must compensate and only partially does. It clarifies that 'index' refers to a style layer index, but the 'molecule' parameter is never mentioned, leaving an unexplained scoping parameter that could change what gets deleted.

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 and resource ('Remove one style layer') plus the keying mechanism ('by its index'), which is enough to distinguish it from add_style and from the bulk clear_styles sibling. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so the differentiation is inferable 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?

The parenthetical '(see get_scene_info)' gives useful guidance on how to obtain a valid index, which is a real usage prerequisite. However, there is no statement of when to prefer clear_styles over repeated removal, nor of any preconditions or failure conditions when the index does not exist.

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

Deploy Server