kazaplan-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Kz Remove

kz_remove

Deletes a specified object—such as a model, opening, wall with its openings, room, or pool—from a 3D home design by object ID.

Instructions

Supprime un objet (modèle, ouverture, mur avec ses ouvertures, pièce, piscine…).

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": {
      "object_id": "<object_id>"
    },
    "name": "kz_remove"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`object_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose one genuinely important behavioral trait — deleting a wall also removes its openings (cascade). However it omits irreversibility/undo, permission requirements, and what happens to dependent objects like rooms or pools, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the scope. No filler; the only weakness is the trailing ellipsis, which undercuts the enumeration's precision.

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 and there is only one required parameter, so the description need not cover return values or parameter shape. The significant remaining gap is destructive-operation semantics (reversibility, cascade scope beyond walls), which matters given the absence of annotations.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'object_id' parameter, so the description must compensate. The parenthetical list of object kinds gives indirect meaning to the accepted identifiers, but no format, prefix convention, or how to obtain a valid ID is provided.

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?

States a specific verb ('Supprime') and resource ('un objet'), and enumerates the removable object kinds (modèle, ouverture, mur, pièce, piscine), which distinguishes it from the add/place/move siblings. The trailing ellipsis leaves the accepted set open-ended rather than definitive.

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 on when to call this versus alternatives (e.g., kz_move or kz_set_room for relocating/reassigning rather than deleting). Nothing on prerequisites, confirmation, or whether the deletion is reversible, which is essential for a destructive tool with no annotations.

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