astrbot-mcp

kb_delete

Delete knowledge base documents by ID or source to remove outdated or unwanted entries.

Instructions

按 ID 或 source 删除知识库文档。

Args: key: 文档 ID 或 source。

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": {
      "key": "<key>"
    },
    "name": "kb_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of explaining behavior. Because this is a deletion operation, it should state whether deletion is permanent, what happens if the key is not found, and whether confirmation is required; it provides none of that context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core sentence is front-loaded and efficient. The Args block is somewhat redundant because it restates the schema, but overall the description contains no significant padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive tool with no annotations, the description is significantly incomplete. It does not explain irreversibility, permissions, missing-key behavior, or the ambiguity between ID and source, and an output schema does not free the description from covering these risks.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the schema calls the single field only 'Key'. The description compensates somewhat by saying the field accepts a document ID or a source, which is useful information beyond the schema. However, it adds no format details, ambiguity rules, or examples.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: deleting a knowledge base document. It also specifies that the identifier can be an ID or a source, but it does not differentiate this from related tools such as kb_get or kb_list.

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?

The description says only what the tool does and gives no guidance about when to use it rather than kb_get, kb_search, or kb_list. It also gives no prerequisites or exclusions, such as whether the document must exist or how the tool behaves when both an ID and a source could match.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.