Remove a RAG index from a knowledge base document by supplying the document ID and index ID to clean up unused or outdated retrieval data.
Delete Rag Index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rag_index_id | Yes | The id of RAG index of document from the knowledge base. | |
| documentation_id | Yes | The id of a document from the knowledge base. This is returned on document addition. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds no extra context about what is permanently removed, authorization needs, or side effects.
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 one-phrase description is concise but under-specified for a destructive operation with two required identifiers. Brevity here is not effective conciseness; it fails to front-load useful selection or caution information.
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 deletion tool in a large sibling set, the description is incomplete. Annotations and schema cover safety and parameters, but the description does not help an agent choose this tool over other RAG-index operations or understand the deletion target.
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%, so both required parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies for 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 states a verb and resource, but it is an exact restatement of the tool name and title. It adds no scope, target details, or differentiation from the many sibling delete and RAG-index tools.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_rag_indexes, get_or_create_rag_indexes, rag_index_status, or query_agent_knowledge_base_rag_route. Prerequisites and consequences are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.