Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Penpot MCP Server

Penpot MCP Server

by zcube
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

delete_shape

Remove a shape from a Penpot page by specifying file, page, and shape IDs.

Instructions

Delete a shape from the page

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": {
      "fileId": "<fileId>",
      "pageId": "<pageId>",
      "shapeId": "<shapeId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_shape"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileIdYesFile ID
pageIdYesPage ID
shapeIdYesShape ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it merely rephrases the tool name. It does not disclose that deletion is permanent, whether it affects child shapes or page structure, permission requirements, or possible error conditions. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key action and resource. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 description lacks essential context for a destructive operation. There is no annotation or output schema to supplement it, yet it does not mention success/failure responses, side effects (e.g., cascading deletion), or prerequisites. This is incomplete for an agent to use correctly, especially among many shape-related siblings.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's simple field labels ('File ID', 'Page ID', 'Shape ID'), but it is not required to compensate given the high schema coverage.

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?

The description 'Delete a shape from the page' uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a clear resource ('shape'), distinguishing it from other delete_* tools like delete_file or delete_comment. It also clarifies the scope ('from the page'), making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_shape for modifications, nor does it mention preconditions (e.g., the shape must exist) or exclusions. It simply states the action without contextual advice.

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