Maya MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_objects

Deletes one or more Maya objects by name, letting AI assistants remove unwanted scene elements during Maya scene editing.

Instructions

Delete one or more Maya objects by name. names is a list of object names.

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": {
      "names": "<names>"
    },
    "name": "delete_objects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`names`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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 behavioral burden. It discloses that objects are identified by name rather than selection, but says nothing about irreversibility, what happens to children/hierarchy, error behavior for missing names, or whether deletion is cascading.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence is slightly redundant with 'by name' in the first but still earns its place by typing the parameter.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a destructive operation with no annotations and sparse parameter detail, the description omits critical context: irreversibility, hierarchy/child handling, and failure behavior when names do not exist.

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?

With one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description does clarify that 'names' is a list of object names. However, it does not specify name format (short names vs full DAG paths), duplicate handling, or whether multiple names are required.

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) and resource (Maya objects) with the scope 'one or more' and the identification method 'by name'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as create_object, duplicate_object, and rename_object.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_selected_objects plus delete, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage comes from 'by name', which is minimal.

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