Delete a knowledge-base page to remove outdated or incorrect information. Use this tool when you need to clean up or retire content from the knowledge base.
Delete a knowledge-base page
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, so the agent knows it's destructive. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond that, such as permanence, cascading effects, or permissions. It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction, but it adds little value beyond the structured metadata.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices critical detail. Structure is clean and efficient, earning a high score for conciseness.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the id refers to, whether deletion is permanent, or what linked resources might be affected. Even with annotations covering the destructive flag, the description leaves too much unspecified for safe invocation.
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 0% and the description does not mention the 'id' parameter at all. The single required parameter is left completely unexplained, so the agent must guess that 'id' refers to the page identifier. With zero coverage, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 'Delete a knowledge-base page' uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a clear resource ('knowledge-base page'), making the purpose unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get, create, and update through the action. It lacks scope or side-effect detail but is clear enough.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts, and doesn't reference sibling tools like update or get. The usage is implied but not articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.