Power CAD MCP

by khs0927

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Hybrid

delete_entities

Destructive

Remove AutoCAD entities by handle to clear unwanted geometry from a drawing before further edits or export.

Instructions

Erase entities.

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": {
      "handles": "<handles>"
    },
    "name": "delete_entities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`handles`	Yes	Entity handles (hex strings)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

C2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is fully specified without the description. The description adds nothing beyond that annotation coverage — no mention of whether deletion is cascading, reversible, or requires referenced entities to exist.

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?

Two words are technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — no sentence earns its place because there is effectively only one sentence carrying almost no information.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the destructive profile. However, for a destructive mutation tool an agent still lacks any statement of what is removed, whether dependent geometry is affected, or error conditions — a significant gap given the operation's irreversibility.

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 coverage is 100% and the single "handles" parameter is documented in the schema as entity handles (hex strings). The description contributes no additional meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Erase entities" restates the tool name (delete_entities) with a synonym and adds no scope, target-type, or effect information. An agent can infer it removes entities, but nothing distinguishes it from the sibling suite (e.g., whether it operates on entity handles vs. layers vs. blocks) beyond 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 Guidelines1/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools. Nothing tells the agent when deletion is appropriate versus moving, copying, or hiding entities.

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