Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Buildup

Buildup

by SNX830
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

remove_part

Destructive

Delete a named part and all its voxels from a project, removing unwanted model components; undo restores it.

Instructions

Delete a part and all its voxels (undo brings it back).

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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "part": "<part>"
    },
    "name": "remove_part"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
partYesPart name, for example 'body' or 'wheel_fl'.
projectYesProject name, for example 'red_pickup'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds two genuinely useful facts beyond them: the blast radius ('all its voxels') and reversibility via undo. It does not say whether removal cascades to references or fails on a missing part, so it is not a full 5.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with the destructive scope stated first and the recovery note in a compact parenthetical. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool whose annotations already flag destructiveness, the description covers the essential questions: what is destroyed and whether it can be reversed. Only edge-case behavior (cascading references, missing-part errors) is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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%, with both 'part' and 'project' documented including naming examples, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no format, naming, or validation detail beyond what the schema already provides, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 (delete) plus the resource (a part) and even the scope of deletion (3all its voxels3), which distinguishes it clearly from add_part and the drawing tools. It stops short of naming a sibling, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 '(undo brings it back)' implies the recovery path and points at the sibling undo tool, giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose remove_part versus alternatives such as hollow_part or teardown_reference, nor any precondition guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools