AutoCAD MCP Native Bridge

by Yimmingyang

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Local

delete_entity

Delete exactly one AutoCAD entity by its hexadecimal handle to remove a specific object from a drawing.

Instructions

Delete exactly one entity identified by its AutoCAD hexadecimal handle.

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": {
      "handle": "<handle>"
    },
    "name": "delete_entity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`handle`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it never says the operation is irreversible, whether an undo/rollback exists, what happens if the handle does not match any entity, or whether the drawing must be saved afterwards. 'Exactly one' is the only behavioral constraint offered.

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 zero filler; the verb, the scope, and the identifier all appear in the first few words.

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

Completeness2/5

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

A destructive mutation with no annotations, no output schema and an undocumented parameter needs considerably more: error behavior, irreversibility, save semantics, and handle provenance are all absent. The definition is not adequate for an agent to call this safely on a real drawing.

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 coverage is 0% and the only parameter has no description in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does partially by naming it an 'AutoCAD hexadecimal handle', which explains the expected format and matches the schema pattern, but it does not say where to obtain a handle or that it must belong to the active drawing.

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) and resource (one entity) plus the identifying key, and the word 'exactly one' bounds the scope so an agent knows this is not a bulk operation. No sibling is named, but no other sibling performs deletion, so confusion risk is low.

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 guidance on when to reach for this tool versus e.g. move_entity or set_entity_layer, nor any stated prerequisite such as inspecting the entity first with inspect_drawing_geometry or obtaining the handle from list_modelspace_entities. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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