Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KiCad MCP Server (IPC API)

KiCad MCP Server (IPC API)

by lmaag182
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

delete_items_by_id

Delete board items by their UUIDs. Removes specified components from a KiCad PCB design.

Instructions

Delete board items by UUID.

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": {
      "item_ids": "<item_ids>"
    },
    "name": "delete_items_by_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
item_idsYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'delete'. It does not mention permanence, reversibility, side effects on other items, or required authorizations. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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 description is very short and to the point, with no extraneous words. However, it could include slightly more useful information without losing conciseness, such as hinting at the item type or listing common item IDs.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or any behavioral constraints. For a deletion tool among many siblings, more context is needed to ensure correct selection.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the parameter 'item_ids', and the description only adds that it uses 'UUID'. No format, constraints, or examples are provided. The description fails to compensate adequately for the missing schema metadata.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action 'delete' and the resource 'board items', and specifies the method 'by UUID'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_component' by indicating it deletes items by their UUIDs.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'delete_component'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, necessary permissions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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