Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Archicad MCP Connector

Archicad MCP Connector

by davidharutyunyan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

Detach elements from issue

detach_elements_from_issue
DestructiveIdempotent

Detaches elements from an Archicad issue in one undo step, regardless of attachment type; the elements themselves remain unchanged.

Instructions

Detaches elements from an issue whatever their attachment type (one undo step); the elements themselves are not changed. Output: {issue: {guid, name}, detached: [guid], notAttached?: [guid]}. Fails when none of them is attached (see get_issue_elements).

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": {
      "issue": "<issue>",
      "elements": "<elements>"
    },
    "name": "detach_elements_from_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueYesIssue (GUID or exact name)
elementsYesElements to detach
undoNameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds non-obvious behavioral detail annotations cannot convey: the operation is a single undo step, the elements themselves are not modified, and the exact failure mode. It also specifies the output shape inline, which is valuable given no output schema exists.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler: action and its non-effects first, then output contract, then failure condition. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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?

For a destructive mutation with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing pieces: output structure, undo semantics, and failure behavior. The only gap is the optional undoName parameter, which is left entirely to the schema.

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 67%, so most parameters are already documented structurally. The description reinforces which entities are involved (issue, elements) but adds nothing about undoName (an optional naming parameter) or the accepted guid/name forms beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (detaches) and resource (elements from an issue) with the scope qualifier 'whatever their attachment type', which distinguishes it cleanly from attach_elements_to_issue and get_issue_elements in the sibling list. An agent can identify the operation without opening 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 Guidelines3/5

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

It gives a failure condition (fails when none is attached) and points to get_issue_elements for inspection, which implies the correct sequencing. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over attach_elements_to_issue or how to discover currently attached elements as a precondition; usage is only implied.

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