Archicad MCP Connector

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete classification systems

delete_classification_systems

Destructive

Delete entire classification systems and all their items in one undo step, removing associated element classifications. Specify by name, version, or GUID.

Instructions

Deletes whole classification systems with all their items in one undo step (element classifications in them are removed). Returns {results: [{guid, name, deleted} | {error}]}.

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": {
      "systems": "<systems>"
    },
    "name": "delete_classification_systems"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`systems`	Yes
`undoName`	No	Name of the undo step shown in Archicad

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the destructive/idempotent profile, and the description adds real value beyond that: it's a single undo step, cascades to all items and element classifications, and returns per-system results. It does not mention permission or Teamwork reservation requirements, so not a 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?

One dense sentence covering what is deleted, undo behavior, side effects, and return shape. Front-loaded with scope, no filler.

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?

With no output schema, describing the return ({results: [...]}) is appropriate and helpful. Destruction scope is clear. Missing: idempotency caveat and preconditions, which would round it out for a destructive bulk op.

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 50%; the description clarifies the 'deleted' result per system but doesn't expand on the systems input format (name/version/GUID) that the schema already documents. It adds the output shape, useful semantics for the caller; baseline would be 3 with mid coverage and no output schema, so slight lift.

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 (deletes) and resource (whole classification systems) with explicit scope (all their items, element classifications removed). Clearly distinguishable from siblings delete_classification_items (single items) and delete_property_definitions.

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?

Scope hints that this is for whole-system deletion vs item deletion, but no explicit when-to-use vs delete_classification_items, and no warning about irreversible bulk deletion. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server