o3de-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

remove_component

Delete a specified component from an entity by providing the entity ID and component type, simplifying scene cleanup and entity management in O3DE.

Instructions

Remove a component from an entity.

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": {
      "entity_id": "<entity_id>",
      "component_type": "<component_type>"
    },
    "name": "remove_component"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entity_id`	Yes
`component_type`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the operation does, but not whether it is destructive, undoable, or what happens if the component or entity does not exist. For a mutation-like operation, this is a notable gap.

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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though its brevity leaves out important information that other dimensions penalize.

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 tool with two required parameters, no annotations, and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It lacks details on parameter formats, error behavior, reversibility, or relation to sibling operations, leaving the agent to guess.

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 add meaning beyond the raw parameter names. It does not explain what entity_id refers to (name vs. GUID) or how component_type is interpreted (class name, type string, etc.). The description merely restates the operation without clarifying either parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove') and a clear object ('a component from an entity'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_component and get_entity_components, making the tool's core purpose immediately evident.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as set_component_property or delete_entity. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., component must exist, entity must be loaded), typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server