Permanently delete one document (and its chunks) from a knowledge base you own — get the document_id from findagent_list_kb_documents. Owner-gated; remaining documents are unaffected. This cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | Yes | The document id (from findagent_list_kb_documents). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deleted | No | ||
| instructions | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: the deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, it is owner-gated, and other documents remain unaffected. These details go beyond the annotation and inform the agent about side effects and authorization requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the action, scope, and ownership, and the second emphasizes irreversibility. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and constraints, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with a single parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the essential prerequisites (document_id source), ownership requirement, scope, and irreversibility. It does not explain error cases or the response format, but the output schema likely covers that. The completeness is strong but not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter document_id, including the instruction to source it from findagent_list_kb_documents. The description repeats this guidance but adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('permanently delete'), a specific resource ('one document (and its chunks) from a knowledge base you own'), and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like findagent_delete_kb which deletes the whole KB. The scope and ownership constraint are explicit, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: it requires the document_id from findagent_list_kb_documents, is owner-gated, and affects only the specified document. It implies the appropriate use case is single-document deletion. While it doesn't explicitly name an alternative for bulk deletion, the one-document framing makes the distinction clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a clearly scoped resource+action combination, and the versioning variants (bump_version vs repull vs reintrospect_mcp) are explicitly disambiguated by agent kind. Even with 52 tools, the descriptions make each purpose distinct enough to avoid misselection.
Nearly all tools follow the findagent_<verb>_<object> snake_case pattern, and families share predictable verbs like list, create, delete, edit, and submit. Minor exceptions such as findagent_preflight, findagent_whoami, and findagent_earnings keep it from perfect consistency.
At 52 tools, this far exceeds the 25-tool threshold for a coherent MCP surface. The count may reflect a broad platform, but as a single toolset it is heavy and likely to strain agent selection and context.
The surface covers publishing, versioning, knowledge bases, org management, GitHub import, purchases, and the demand board in impressive depth. However, there are notable dead ends: no unpublish/delete for a live agent, no request-fulfillment/linking action, and no org deletion or KB document update.
