Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
kerbal-space-program-mcp

kerbal-space-program-mcp

by ziksjksk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

ksp_editor_remove_part

Remove a part by ID from the Kerbal Space Program editor and, by default, delete its entire child subtree.

Instructions

Remove an editor part and, by default, its complete child subtree.

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": "ksp_editor_remove_part"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
include_childrenNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.9

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the default destructive scope (child subtree is removed unless overridden), which is the single most important trait for a delete tool, but says nothing about reversibility, failure modes, or whether dangling references/invalid craft state can result.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The default-scope clause is appended where it matters most, right after the core action.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key destructive nuance but leaves the id format and the include_children=false behavior to inference. Adequate but thin given the complete absence of structured documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so both parameters are undocumented in structured data. The phrase 'by default' implies include_children can be turned off, but the description never names the parameter, states its default value explicitly, or clarifies whether id refers to a part name, index, or instance identifier.

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 (remove) and resource (editor part), plus the scope of what is deleted. It clearly distinguishes itself from the add_part/attach_part/update_part siblings in the editor family, though it does not name any of them explicitly.

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 indication of when to use this instead of alternatives (e.g. update_part for modifying, clear for wiping the craft), nor any prerequisites such as being in the editor scene. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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