easyeda-mcp-pro

Delete schematic primitives

easyeda_schematic_delete_primitive

Delete schematic components, wires, or drawing objects by primitive UUID. Use transactionId and projectId for rollback-backed deletion; omit for standalone removal.

Instructions

Delete components, wires, or other drawing objects by primitive UUID. Pass projectId + transactionId for rollback-backed deletion of safely recreatable drawing primitives; unsupported transactional delete kinds fail before mutation. Without transactionId the write is standalone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`projectId`	No	Required when transactionId is supplied; must match the transaction document.
`confirmWrite`	Yes	Must be the literal boolean true (not the string "true") to allow this write.
`primitiveIds`	Yes
`transactionId`	No	Optional snapshot-backed project transaction ID.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedv0.19.2Oct 2, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

addedInput schema / properties / primitiveIds / items / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```
addedInput schema / properties / primitiveIds / minItems
```
Added value: +1
```

addedInput schema / properties / projectId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Required when transactionId is supplied; must match the transaction document.",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / transactionId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional snapshot-backed project transaction ID.",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

Changed1 schema field changedv0.19.1Jul 15, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / confirmWrite / description
```
Added value: +"Must be the literal boolean true (not the string \"true\") to allow this write."
```
First observedv0.19.0Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description goes further, disclosing rollback-backed semantics, that unsupported transactional delete kinds fail before any mutation, and that omitting transactionId yields a non-transactional standalone write. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the annotations, though confirmation requirements and reversibility outside a transaction are not spelled out.

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?

Three tight sentences, zero filler, and the core action plus addressing scheme are front-loaded before the transaction-mode caveats. Every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the mutation's safety profile is covered by the description plus annotations. Remaining minor gap: it does not state the consequences of a standalone (non-transactional) delete being unrecoverable, but overall it is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75%, with projectId, confirmWrite and transactionId already documented. The description adds the semantic relationship between the parameters (projectId required alongside transactionId, transactionId enabling rollback) and clarifies that deletion targets primitives by UUID, going beyond the raw schema text.

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?

States a specific verb (Delete) plus the resource set (components, wires, other drawing objects) and the addressing key (primitive UUID). It is clearly separable from the sibling easyeda_schematic_modify_primitive and the add_* tools without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives an explicit conditional: use projectId + transactionId for rollback-backed deletion, or omit transactionId for a standalone write. That is clear context for selecting the mode, though it does not name an alternative sibling tool for cases where deletion is the wrong operation (e.g. modify_primitive).

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

Deploy Server