formlabs-local-mcp

delete_model

Destructive

Delete a model from a print scene to adjust or clear the build. Provide the model ID and optional scene ID to remove it.

Instructions

Remove a model from the scene.

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": {
      "model_id": "<model_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_model"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`model_id`	Yes
`scene_id`	No	Scene id; omit for the default scene	default

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.4Sep 16, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive, but the description does not clarify whether the model is permanently deleted or merely removed from the scene. The phrase 'from the scene' could understate the destructive nature and does not explain side effects such as losing unsaved work or affecting dependent objects.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single short sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and target, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

For a destructive operation with no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not state whether deletion is permanent, whether the model file is also deleted, what happens to references, or how errors are surfaced. The destructive annotation covers safety, but the operational scope remains unclear.

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 schema documents scene_id but provides no description for model_id, and the tool description adds no parameter-level detail. An agent must infer that model_id identifies the model to remove, and the description does not help with format, requiredness, or relationship to scene_id.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and a clear resource ('a model from the scene'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like delete_scene, get_model, and update_model because it names the exact object and scope.

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?

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or situations where it should not be used. It does not mention delete_scene or other model-related tools as alternatives, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name alone.

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