AutoCAD MCP

autocad_delete_entities

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete multiple AutoCAD entities by handle in one call. Partial failures are reported per handle, so bulk cleanup continues without stopping.

Instructions

Delete several entities by handle in one call. Partial failures are reported, not raised.

Args: params (DeleteEntitiesInput): - handles (list[str]): 1-500 hex handles.

Returns: str: JSON {"deleted": [...], "errors": [{"handle", "error"}, ...]}.

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": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "autocad_delete_entities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information beyond that: partial failures are reported rather than raised, which tells the agent to inspect the errors array instead of catching an exception. It does not state permanence/undo implications, which autocad_undo provides.

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?

Well front-loaded: the core action and the failure semantics are in the first two sentences. The Args/Returns sections are clean, though the Returns block partially duplicates the output schema and the Args block restates the schema's handles description.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained (and the description's summary of the JSON shape is a bonus). Annotations cover the safety profile, and the bulk/partial-failure semantics are explained. What is missing is only peripheral: how handles are obtained and the choice versus the singular delete_entity sibling.

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 coverage is reported as 0%, but the nested DeleteEntitiesInput does describe handles as 'Handles of the entities to delete (hex strings)' and carries minItems/maxItems. The description's '1-500 hex handles' restates those constraints and adds the hex format, but contributes little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a single-parameter tool whose schema does the heavy lifting.

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, resource, and scope: 'Delete several entities by handle in one call.' The bulk framing implicitly separates it from the singular sibling autocad_delete_entity, though that sibling is never named explicitly. An agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: the bulk/'one call' framing signals 'use this when you already have multiple handles.' There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of autocad_delete_entity as the single-entity alternative, and nothing about how to obtain handles (e.g., query_entities).

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

Deploy Server