Remove a UV map from a mesh to discard its texture coordinates. Check existing UV layers first to prevent losing textures bound to that map.
Delete a UV map from a mesh.
Textures bound to that map will lose their coordinates, so check list_uv_layers first if the mesh has more than one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| uv_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses the key non-obvious side effect: textures bound to the deleted map lose their coordinates. It also warns about multi-layer meshes. It doesn't mention irreversibility, but the warning is the critical behavioral fact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, entirely on-topic. The action is front-loaded, and the side-effect warning earns its place. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter delete with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the action and the most important consequence. The missing parameter semantics is a gap, but the warning to check first compensates for common failure modes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain what 'name' and 'uv_name' mean, but it does not. Their roles are inferable from context, yet the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's field titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action (delete) and resource (a UV map on a mesh). The verb + target make it distinct from siblings like create_uv_layer and set_active_uv_layer without requiring schema inspection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises checking list_uv_layers first when there are multiple layers, giving a concrete precondition and naming the relevant sibling. It doesn't describe exclusions, but the caution is strong usage guidance for a destructive operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.