scratch-unified-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Sb3 Delete List

sb3_delete_list

Delete a named list from a Scratch project by specifying the list name and target. Use this to remove unused or unwanted data lists during project editing.

Instructions

Delete a list. (proxied)

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": {
      "target": "<target>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "sb3_delete_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`target`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It notes the operation is 'proxied' and implies a destructive delete, but it does not explain side effects, irreversibility, target scoping, or whether any confirmation or safeguards exist.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very short and front-loaded, with no filler. However, the parenthetical '(proxied)' is unexplained and the overall terseness crosses from concise into under-specified, leaving the agent without enough context.

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?

For a tool with two required string parameters, no annotations, and zero schema coverage, the description is too skeletal. It does not explain how to identify the list, whether 'target' is a sprite/project identifier, or what behavior to expect after deletion.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about what 'target' or 'name' mean. An agent cannot determine whether 'name' is the list name, a variable name, or something else, nor what 'target' refers to.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Delete a list') and resource, and the tool name/title reinforce this. It distinguishes at least from sibling sb3_delete_variable by targeting a list rather than a variable, though it does not explain what kind of list or in what context.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sb3_delete_variable, sb3_set_list, or related project/sprite tools. The phrase 'Delete a list' implies a use case but provides no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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

Deploy Server