Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Garden Design MCP Server

Garden Design MCP Server

by zaprojektuj-ogrod
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

delete_zone

Remove a garden zone by ID to delete an unwanted area from the plot layout.

Instructions

Delete a zone 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_zone"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesZone 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, and it only implies destruction via the verb "delete." It does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent or undoable (relevant given undo/redo siblings), whether contained objects are cascade-deleted, or whether permissions are required.

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?

One short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficiently written, though its brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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?

This is a destructive single-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, meaning the description alone must convey consequences and safety. It says nothing about irreversibility, cascade effects on zone contents, or the success/failure result, leaving an agent under-informed before calling it.

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% for the single required parameter, so the schema already explains that the argument is the zone ID to delete. The description's "by ID" restates that without adding format, sourcing, or validation meaning, which is the baseline case.

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 zone") plus the lookup key ("by ID"), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as delete_object, delete_objects, delete_pin, or clear_all, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 tool versus clearing, updating, or bulk-deleting alternatives in the sibling list. No preconditions, no confirmation guidance, and no statement about what happens to objects contained in the zone.

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