Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Garden Design MCP Server

Garden Design MCP Server

by zaprojektuj-ogrod
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

delete_object

Delete a garden object by its ID to remove it from the design and keep the garden plan accurate.

Instructions

Delete a garden object by ID

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_object"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesObject ID to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.9.3

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 does not say whether the deletion is permanent or undoable, whether it cascades to child objects or zone membership, whether it requires confirmation, or what happens if the ID does not exist.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, leading with the verb and resource. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves no room for the scoping or safety detail the tool needs.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but omits irreversibility, cascade behavior, and error handling. The complete schema helps, but the destructive nature warrants more disclosure.

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 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already described in the schema as 'Object ID to delete', so the description adds no meaning beyond it. With complete schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a garden object') plus the identifier ('by ID'), which is enough to know what the tool does. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as delete_objects (batch), delete_zone, delete_pin, or clear_all, so an agent must infer the scope.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the plural delete_objects alternative for multiple deletions, and no prerequisites or exclusion conditions. The agent is left to infer that this is the single-object case.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools