Removes a specified stereotype from a model element using its qualified name, enabling cleanup of unwanted classifications and restoring accurate model semantics.
Remove a stereotype from an element by its qualified name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| element_id | Yes | ||
| stereotype_qn | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that this is a destructive operation, any permission requirements, side effects on related model elements, or error behavior (e.g., what happens if the stereotype is not applied). It adds nothing beyond the verb in the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan. It earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and incomplete parameter descriptions, this is inadequate. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the element must exist), potential side effects, or the meaning of the output. The presence of an output schema is noted, but the description does not explain what the tool returns or how errors are surfaced. More context is needed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'stereotype_qn' is the qualified name of the stereotype ('by its qualified name'), but it does not explain what 'element_id' refers to or any format constraints. It provides minimal additional meaning beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Remove'), a resource ('a stereotype from an element'), and the method ('by its qualified name'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like apply_stereotype (adds) and list_applied_stereotypes (lists). The action is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description is purely functional and gives no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.