can-engineering-mcp

by kankan-sarkar

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

delete_dbc_message

Remove a CAN frame from a DBC database by ID or name; use dry run to preview the deletion before committing.

Instructions

Remove a frame cleanly from the database.

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": {
      "dbc_path": "<dbc_path>",
      "frame_id_or_name": "<frame_id_or_name>"
    },
    "name": "delete_dbc_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dry_run`	No
`dbc_path`	Yes
`frame_id_or_name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but 'Remove' only implies a destructive mutation. It does not disclose whether the file is rewritten in place, whether deletion is permanent, how associated signals are handled, or what dry_run changes.

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 single sentence is front-loaded, readable, and free of procedural filler. However, 'cleanly' is undefined, and the brevity omits operationally important details.

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

Completeness2/5

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

One generic sentence is insufficient for a destructive file-based operation with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. Correct and safe invocation still requires inference about mutation scope, dry-run behavior, and deletion effects.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description offers no explicit parameter documentation. It broadly suggests a database and frame target but leaves dbc_path requirements, accepted frame_id_or_name forms, and dry_run behavior unexplained.

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?

The description provides a clear verb and resource: removing a frame from the database, consistent with deleting a DBC message. It does not explicitly distinguish whole-frame deletion from delete_dbc_signal or explain what 'cleanly' means.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

Usage is only implied for removing an entire frame; there are no prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit when-to-use guidance. It does not direct agents to delete_dbc_signal for signal-only removal or upsert_dbc_message for modification.

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