Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CDT AutoCAD Provider

CDT AutoCAD Provider

by SlncTrZ
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

object_delete

Deletes a single entity from the active AutoCAD drawing by its backend object identifier or persistent handle; use only for destructive removal, not temporary hiding.

Instructions

Delete one object by backend object identifier from the active document; this is destructive and timeout uncertainty must be reconciled before retry.

Side-effects: Destructive deletion of entity from active drawing. Disambiguation: Destructive removal; use object_set_properties(visible=False) if temporary hiding is preferred.

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": {
      "object_id": "<object_id>"
    },
    "name": "object_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
object_idYesBackend entity identifier or persistent CAD handle of object to delete

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / object_id / description
      Added value: +"Backend entity identifier or persistent CAD handle of object to delete"
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the load and does so well: it states the deletion is destructive and permanent in effect, names the side effect on the active drawing, and warns about timeout/idempotency ambiguity on retry. It stops short of saying whether undo can restore the deleted entity, or how it behaves for locked layers or entities referenced by blocks — relevant gaps for a destructive tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and target, then segmented into labeled Side-effects and Disambiguation clauses — easy to scan. Minor redundancy: destruction is stated three times (main sentence, side-effects line, disambiguation line), one of which could be cut.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the critical behaviors for a destructive one-param tool: what is destroyed, scope, and retry hazard. It leaves out failure modes (unknown/stale object_id), and whether the deletion is undoable via the undo sibling, which would round it out for the agent.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by narrowing scope to the active document and identifying the identifier as a backend object identifier, which constrains what a valid value can be.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (delete), a precise scope (one object), the identifier type (backend object identifier), and the document context (active document). This distinguishes it clearly from object_list, object_get, object_query, and object_set_properties without needing the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it: use object_set_properties(visible=False) when temporary hiding is preferred. It also flags a retry precondition (reconcile timeout uncertainty before retry), which is exactly the kind of when-to-use guidance an agent needs for a destructive operation.

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