bonsai-mcp

by nhantruong96

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

ifc_remove_pset

Detach a property set from an IFC element to remove unwanted data.

Instructions

Detach a property set from an element.

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": {
      "pset": "<pset>"
    },
    "name": "ifc_remove_pset"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`guid`	No
`pset`	Yes
`query`	No
`max_elements`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a pset is detached, but does not clarify whether the property set is deleted, kept in the model, or how the operation affects associated data. This is a meaningful transparency gap for a mutating operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, but the brevity sacrifices essential parameter and usage context.

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?

The tool has four parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations. The one-sentence description leaves out how to identify the element, how the query parameters work, and what constraints apply, so the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter understanding. It only clarifies the meaning of 'pset' implicitly; the roles of 'guid', 'query', and 'max_elements' are completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess how to target the element.

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 uses a clear verb (Detach) and specifies both the resource (property set) and the target (an element). This distinguishes it from the sibling ifc_add_pset, which performs the inverse operation, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ifc_add_pset or when detaching is appropriate. The context implies this is the inverse of adding a pset, but that is not explicitly stated.

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