delete_graph_nodeDelete a node and all its relationships from a deployed graph project. ⚠️ This also removes all relationships connected to this node (DETACH DELETE).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_id | Yes | The node's entity_id | |
| project_id | Yes | Project ID (UUID) | |
| entity_type | Yes | Entity key (e.g., 'person', 'concept') | |
| environment | No | Environment: staging or production (default: staging) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly discloses the destructive cascading behavior: 'This also removes all relationships connected to this node (DETACH DELETE)'. This goes beyond the annotated destructiveHint=true by specifying the exact scope of destruction, which is valuable context for an agent. No contradiction with annotations is present.
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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then emphasize the key warning. Every word contributes meaning, with the warning emoji drawing attention to the side effect. No wasted content.
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 destructive delete operation, the description covers the essential context: what is deleted, the cascading effect, and the target environment ('deployed graph project'). The schema handles parameter details, and no output schema is expected for a delete operation. It could mention irreversibility explicitly, but the destructiveHint annotation and 'DETACH DELETE' warning make the behavior clear enough.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. The tool description itself does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('Delete a node and all its relationships') and the target resource ('from a deployed graph project'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_graph_relationship by specifying it removes the node and all connected relationships, making its scope 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 conveys when to use the tool: when you need to delete a node and its relationships from a deployed graph. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., delete_graph_relationship for removing only a relationship), but the context of 'deployed graph project' and the explicit cascading behavior provide sufficient situational guidance.
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.
Most tools are clearly differentiated by domain (project vs graph_project) and action (create, get, list, delete). The main ambiguity is get_project vs get_project_info, which both claim to return detailed project information. Otherwise tool boundaries are clear.
The server follows a strong verb_noun convention, with parallel naming for graph and non-graph tools (create_project/create_graph_project, deploy_staging/deploy_graph_staging). Minor deviations include bulk_create_graph_nodes and fulltext_search_graph, but patterns remain predictable.
48 tools is a heavy surface, even when accounting for the two parallel product domains (relational and graph). Many tools are near-duplicates across domains, and the count exceeds the 25-tool threshold that feels manageable. It would benefit from consolidation or sub-servers.
Both project types have full life-cycle coverage: create, schema management, deployment, rollback, and deletion, plus graph data operations including bulk, search, and traversal. Minor gaps exist, such as no update_graph_relationship and the redundant get_project/get_project_info pair, but agents can accomplish core workflows.