uni-t-uts-mcp

delete_limit_line

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete the points of one selected limit line or all limit lines while leaving type, trace, and margin settings unchanged, and wait until the analyzer confirms the line is empty.

Instructions

Delete the points of one limit line (line) or of all limit lines (all: true). Type, trace and margin settings are left as they are. The result confirms the line is empty (for all, line 1 is checked); the analyzer finishes a delete a moment after it is sent, so the tool waits for it.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "delete_limit_line"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`all`	No	Delete every limit line instead of one
`line`	No	Limit line number, 1 to 6 (the 1000-series models have 1 to 4)
`instrument`	No	Which instrument to use (a name from list_instruments). Default: the `default` instrument, or the only one configured

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it specifies what is destroyed (only points, while type/trace/margin settings survive), that the result verifies the line is empty (line 1 for the all case), and that the tool blocks briefly because the analyzer finishes the delete asynchronously.

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?

Three compact sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope, what is preserved, and verification/timing. The parenthetical style is dense but front-loads the primary action. Minor trimming is possible but nothing is filler.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the essentials: what is deleted, what is preserved, how success is confirmed, and the asynchronous settle behavior. It omits any mention of instrument connection prerequisites, which would be a useful addition given the instrument parameter.

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 the schema already documents line (1-6) and all. The description reinforces the line/all relationship and adds the non-obvious detail that the all-mode verification inspects line 1, which is marginal extra value over the schema.

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: 'Delete the points of one limit line (line) or of all limit lines (all: true).' It also distinguishes the operation from deleting the line configuration by noting 'Type, trace and margin settings are left as they are.' No sibling tool is named, so differentiation from delete_emi_limit_line is left implicit.

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 description clarifies the two operating modes (single line vs all: true), which effectively tells the agent how to choose between them. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over delete_emi_limit_line or other siblings, nor any prerequisite such as a connected instrument.

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

Deploy Server