Remove a website from a knowledge collection and DELETE every page file indexed from it. Cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_id | Yes | ID of the website source (from collections.list_websites) | |
| in_workspace | No | Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected. | |
| collection_id | Yes | ID of the knowledge collection |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / in_workspaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description goes beyond them by specifying exactly what is destroyed (every page file indexed from the website) and reinforcing irreversibility, which is the highest-value context for this call.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action and its destructive consequence front-loaded before the irreversibility warning. Every clause earns its place.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover what the agent needs: the action, its side effects on indexed page files, and that it cannot be undone. Minor gaps remain around post-removal collection state and auth requirements, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with source_id even pointing at collections.list_websites, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 and resource ('Remove a website from a knowledge collection') and adds the crucial scope detail that every page file indexed from the website is also deleted. That detail cleanly separates it from the sibling collections_remove_file, which removes a single file rather than an entire website source.
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 destructive scope and 'Cannot be undone' warning imply this is the terminal cleanup action, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling collections_remove_file, and no note on what happens to the collection if this was its last source. Usage must be inferred.
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.