Garden Design MCP Server

delete_objects

Delete multiple garden objects by ID in a single request and return per-object results, so garden layouts can be updated in bulk.

Instructions

Delete multiple garden objects by ID in a single call. Returns array of results.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	Yes	Array of object IDs to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.9.3Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden for a destructive bulk operation, and it delivers little: no statement of irreversibility, permissions required, or what happens if some IDs are invalid. 'Returns array of results' faintly hints at per-ID outcomes rather than all-or-nothing behavior, but this is left ambiguous.

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 action and scope, with no filler. The second sentence is useful rather than redundant, though it could be tightened to state what the results actually contain.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials — action, bulk scope, and that results are per-call. What is missing is the destructive-operation context (partial failure, reversibility) that annotations would normally supply.

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 'ids' parameter is documented as 'Array of object IDs to delete', so the schema does the work. The description's 'by ID' adds nothing beyond it, and there is no note on ID format, max batch size, or duplicate handling — a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Delete multiple garden objects by ID') and the bulk nature ('in a single call'), which implicitly separates it from the singular delete_object sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling or the clear_all alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not fully disambiguating.

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 prefer this over delete_object, clear_all, or update_objects, and no mention of prerequisites such as confirming IDs exist or whether the caller should verify first. The only contextual cue is the word 'multiple', which the agent must infer.

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

Deploy Server