ignition-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

perspective_delete_view

Delete a Perspective view from an Ignition project by specifying the project and view path. Optionally confirm deletion with the view name.

Instructions

Mutating + destructive, bridge plane + REST scan.

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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "view_path": "<view_path>"
    },
    "name": "perspective_delete_view"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No
`project`	Yes
`view_path`	Yes
`confirm_name`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

D1.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description labels the tool as 'mutating + destructive,' hinting at its behavior, but provides no details about what exactly is destroyed, whether the action is reversible, or any permissions required. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose critical behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short but not effectively concise; it uses unexplained jargon ('bridge plane', 'REST scan') and lacks structure. It fails to deliver clear information in a compact form.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given that the tool performs a destructive operation with multiple parameters and an output schema exists, the description is grossly incomplete. It omits any information about return values, side effects, or failure modes.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters (confirm, project, view_path, confirm_name). The agent receives no guidance on what these parameters mean or how to use them.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description says 'Mutating + destructive, bridge plane + REST scan,' which is vague and fails to explicitly state that this tool deletes a view. The purpose is implied by the name but not clarified by the description.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

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 such as perspective_upsert_view or perspective_list_views. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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