Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
erp2pdf-studio-mcp

erp2pdf-studio-mcp

by c4pointer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

delete_part

Permanently deletes a part by ID, refusing removal while templates reference it unless force is set to true.

Instructions

Delete a part. Refused (part_in_use) while templates use it, unless force=true.

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": {
      "part_id": "<part_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_part"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
forceNo
part_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a genuinely useful trait: the part_in_use refusal and the force override. It remains silent on permanence/reversibility, what happens to records referencing the part, and permission requirements, which are material for a destructive operation.

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?

Two tight sentences with the main action first and the guard condition immediately after; nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description covers the critical in-use guard but leaves the blast radius (reference cleanup, permanence, permissions) undefined.

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 0%, so the description could do more, but it does explain the non-obvious parameter: force overrides the in-use refusal. part_id is left implicit (presumably the part to delete) with no type or format detail.

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 a part"), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling create_part and update_part tools. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the verb alone 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 description communicates the key precondition: deletion is refused with part_in_use while templates reference the part, and force=true overrides that. It does not say when an agent should prefer update/retire over deletion, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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