Skip to main content
Glama
healkeiser

fxhoudinimcp

by healkeiser
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

delete_node

Delete a node, or several in one call.

Instructions

Delete a node, or several in one call.

Pass node_path or node_paths, not both.

Args: ctx: MCP context. node_path: Node path. node_paths: Several nodes at once, one undo step. Every path is checked first: a missing one deletes nothing. A node inside another listed one goes with it (deleted_with_parent).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_pathNo
node_pathsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv2.27.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / node_path / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / node_path / default
      Added value: +null
    • removedInput schema / properties / node_path / type
      Removed value: -"string"
    • addedInput schema / properties / node_paths
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Node Paths"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "node_path"
-]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.24.1
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that a batch is a single undo step, that paths are validated up front so a missing path aborts the whole call, and that nested nodes are removed with their parent (`deleted_with_parent`). It omits permission/auth requirements and any irreversibility warning, keeping it short of 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The operational rule is front-loaded in the first two lines, and every sentence about node_paths earns its place. The 'Args: ctx: MCP context' block is wasted space since ctx is not a schema parameter, a minor structural flaw.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers atomicity, batch undo behavior, and nested deletion, which is the material an agent needs before calling. It leaves out only secondary concerns like permissions and post-delete state, so it is complete but not exhaustive.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must supply all parameter meaning, and it does: node_path is a single node path, node_paths is several at once with one undo step, and the two are mutually exclusive. The atomic validation rule and the `deleted_with_parent` return key add semantics the bare `anyOf` schema cannot convey.

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 node, or several in one call'), immediately telling the agent this is a destructive node-scoped operation. It does not name a sibling or contrast itself with related tools like move_node or delete_keyframe, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives a concrete constraint for choosing between the two input modes ('Pass node_path or node_paths, not both'), which is genuine selection guidance. However, it offers no context on when to prefer batch deletion, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternative tools; usage is implied rather than fully framed.

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